Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]

HAPPISBURGH LIGHTHOUSE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Waiting Lists

Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing waiting lists in the past 12 months.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The £31 million waiting list fund for 1989–90 will enable around 100,000 extra in-patients and day cases and 90,000 out-patients to be treated from the waiting lists by the end of March 1990. We have sent a management team into the 22 districts with the longest waiting lists, and as a result waiting lists in those districts have reduced by 12 per cent. and the number of patients waiting over a year by 17 per cent., with further reductions planned. Nationally, provisional figures for September 1989 suggest that waiting lists, in particular the numbers waiting over a year, have fallen since March 1989.

Mr. Blunkett: Does the Secretary of State think that, in the interests of open government, it would be sensible for the Government to collect statistics nationally on out-patients awaiting appointments? In audiology, there is often an 18-month or two-year waiting list. Does he agree that the BBC statistics collected recently, which show that massive cuts would have to be made in a third of health authorities if spending is not increased, would be made worse if the true national statistics for waiting lists were available? Those statistics would show what people are experiencing rather than the propaganda put out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department.

Mr. Clarke: We keep collecting more statistics on waiting lists and we collect accurate information, which we disseminate. Recently, for example, we added figures on the waiting lists for day-patient treatment, as that treatment now represents a much bigger proportion of work.
The BBC survey to which the hon. Gentleman referred showed no results of the type that he described or anything

like that. The statistics show that some districts are having difficulty keeping within their cash limits this year,but all districts are not only spending much more money than in previous years, but treating more patients and expanding their services.

Mr. David Howell: My right hon. and learned Friend has shown considerable determination in tackling the waiting list problem. Does he agree that at least part of the problem is caused by short-term budget cuts that must be made in certain hospitals? Is he aware that in my local hospital, the Royal Surrey county hospital, short-term budget cuts have had to be made because no funding is available for the large number of patients who come to that hospital from other districts? Is not it a crazy system that prevents excellent hospitals, such as the Royal Surrey, from providing the patient care of which they are capable, as they cannot get the money, because, apparently, the accounting system does not allow them to do so?

Mr. Clarke: It has always been a habit within the National Health Service for some authorities to expand their services rapidly for about 10 months of the year and then, towards the end of the financial year, to start to make short-term changes to try to keep within their cash limas. That demonstrates the failure of the present system to enable people to plan steady expansion of services in line with the steady growth of funds. I agree with my right hon. Friend that, in future, districts will be much more able to match their funds to the growth of patients. Districts that take in many patients from outside because of the quality of their services will find that the necessary funds come with those patients.

Ms. Primarolo: Does the Secretary of State accept that the money given to cut the waiting lists represents a blunt instrument? Many district authorities are concerned about the way in which they must allocate their budgets. Yesterday Bristol and Weston district health authority expressed its great concern about how the waiting list money was allocated, as it means that that authority cannot take into consideration pain and suffering or target lists of pain and suffering that may exceed 12 months in the next few months. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman review that criterion with a view to being much more sensitive about distributing that money?

Mr. Clarke: Our waiting list initiative will be overtaken by our White Paper reforms when they are brought into practice. They will have the beneficial effect that I have just described to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). In admitting patients, all hospitals take account of the gravity of the case, and the pain and suffering involved. We have to remember that more than half the patients in the National Health Service go for treatment and do not have to wait at all. Of those who go on to waiting lists, about half go into hospital within five weeks. It is not just a queue. People are admitted according to their clinical priority. Where there are serious problems, pain and suffering, we must not alarm people by making them think that waiting lists get in the way.

Private Health

Mr. Lee: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers his Department has in the monitoring of private hospital medical charges and private medical insurance premiums.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): None. However, health care providers and insurers operate in a competitive market, which helps to control their fees and subscriptions.

Mr. Lee: With the number of people covered by private medical insurance now approaching 10 per cent. of the population, increasing public concern about the level and variation of charges, continually escalating premiums and the fact that the Government now have a direct vested interest because of tax relief for the elderly, will my hon. Friend consider appointing a private sector health commissioner to police this sector and investigate complaints?

Mr. Freeman: The latest figure is that 12 per cent. of the population is covered by private insurance. Some 15 per cent. of elective surgery is performed in private hospitals. It is not the Government's responsibility to control those costs. I share my hon. Friend's concern, but it is for the patient, when he or she takes out an insurance policy to read the small print and be aware of what the charges may be for elective surgery in the private sector.

Mr. Robin Cook: If the Minister will not monitor the excessive charges of private hospitals, will he at least condemn them? Does he agree that it is an outrage that BUPA, the British United Provident Association, should have charged £168 for a cotton swab and £983 for a drug that cost £13? How does that happen in a competitive market? Now that we know, thanks to the National Audit Office, that the NHS can do most operations at half the cost of private hospitals, would not the Minister get better value for his money by putting public money into public hospitals rather than by paying for tax relief on inefficient, private ones?

Mr. Freeman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed about the National Audit Office report. If he reads it carefully, he will see that the NAO reported that, for the £50 million that the National Health Service spent in private hospitals on long-term contracts for 30,000 patients, it got "good value for money".

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On several occasions I have asked the Department of Health for comparative figures on the costs of NHS operations, only to be told that the information is not collected centrally. Is it not about time that we did so, to find out why there are such vast differences in the cost of the same operations in different health districts?

Mr. Freeman: Through the introduction of the new performance indicators, we have the first year's results for 1987–88, and will shortly have the 1988–89 figures. They will enable my hon. Friend and other National Health Service patients to compare the performance of districts and hospitals, one with the other.

Speech Therapists

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the salary levels for speech therapists.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Agreement has been reached on speech therapists' pay for the period April 1989 to September 1990 and the new pay rates have been promulgated today. The settlement gives across-the-board increases in pay of 9 per cent. over an 18-month period.

Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister appreciate the extent of the crisis of morale among speech therapists working in the National Health Service? Why are they so poorly paid in relation to, for example, physiotherapists or occupational therapists? Does not their poor level of pay justify their feeling that the contribution that they make to the National Health Service is undervalued? What studies have the Government carried out to satisfy themselves that the low pay does not have an adverse effect on recruitment?

Mrs. Bottomley: Speech therapists are most certainly valued within the National Health Service. Under the new arrangements, their starting pay will be £9,487 ranging up to £22,087. The Department of Health NHS management advisory group is collecting information about recruitment and retention, and we shall look at it.

Mr. Devlin: I welcome the fact that speech therapists' pay has increased by 19 per cent. in real terms since 1979, but does not the fact that theirs is an all-graduate profession and the fact that they can so easily enter other areas of activity mean that they should be rewarded far more generously if their numbers are to be maintained and expanded?

Mrs. Bottomley: I assure my hon. Friend that there has been a considerable expansion in the number of speech therapists over the past 10 years. There are about 80 per cent. more speech therapists than there were 10 years ago. Their new starting pay level makes them more comparable with others in the Health Service and, more importantly, in the private health sector as well. But pay is not the only factor in recruitment and retention. The first report of the Select Committee on Social Services suggested a number of other areas where their needs could appropriately be met within the Health Service.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister agree that there will be insufficient speech therapists to achieve what the Government say are their community care objectives and that, because of the starting salary, many young people are denied the right to enter a worthwhile and rewarding profession?

Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of speech therapists to the provision of care in the community, but I remind him that there has been an 80 per cent. increase in their number. Speech therapists' starting salary has increased by 46·2 per cent., from £3,800 in 1979 to £9,400. The comparable increase in starting salary when the Labour party was in power was a mere 12 per cent.

Mr. Rowe: I agree that those are encouraging figures, but does my hon. Friend agree that it might be better for


speech therapists if they left the Whitley council and, taking advantage of the new arrangements for community care and the Health Service, seriously considered setting themselves up as independent, non-profit making trusts to tender their services to all the contractors who might wish to buy them?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is a long-term champion of speech therapists. I am meeting members of the College of Speech Therapists next week to discuss their concerns about future arrangements. Under the new regime, it is intended that they should continue to be able to receive patients on the basis of self-referral. The new salary structure will be an improvement and an enhancement, but they will want to discuss many other ways in which they can deploy their services under a future regime.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill

Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent so far by his Department, by district health authorities and family practitioner committees to prepare for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: So far in 1989–90 expenditure on review-related initiatives in the NHS as a whole stand at just over £80 million.

Mr. Lamond: How is it that the Government can cheerfully find £85 million to set up a monstrous bureaucracy of accountants and clerks who will be busy pushing accounts and receipts across a table to one another, but cannot find one tenth of that to help to overcome the tremendous hardship that people are suffering as a result of the ambulance workers' dispute?

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that one year after we produced the White Paper entitled, "Working for Patients", the hon. Gentleman has not yet found time to read it. If he did so, he would realise that it has nothing to do with employing large numbers of accountants and clerks. The expenditure that has so far been incurred, includes, for example, expenditure on 100 extra consultants to tackle the waiting lists, on introducing quality control of clinical services, known as medical audit, and on pilot projects to introduce a new system of contracts to be entered into between district health authorities and hospitals. That £80 million has to be set against expenditure on the Health Service as a whole of £29,000 million next year and the £5,000 million increase in two years alone that we are proposing for the NHS.

Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider spending more money on ensuring that the general public are acquainted with the Bill's proposals and philosophy, and thus counteract some of the misleading information that has been given by certain professional bodies and by the Labour party?

Mr. Clarke: The White Paper is still available. It is written with clarity and there are explanatory leaflets to accompany it. There are strict rules governing the use of taxpayers' money for publicity and advertising. I have never been able to match the advertising budgets of the people who spent so much money last year on disseminating misleading versions of the reforms.

Nevertheless, my experience of the Health Service tells me that the climate of opinion is changing rapidly among all groups of staff within the NHS, and I am sure that that will rapidly communicate itself to the general public.

Mrs. Wise: Why did not the Secretary of State answer the question, which relates to expenditure
to prepare for the implementation of the Natioal Health Service and Community Care Bill"?
Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman want the House to know the exact figure? Why does he prefer to muddle it up with expenditure on consultants? How can it be lawful to spend any money on implementing a measure that has not yet received the approval of the House?

Mr. Clarke: I answered the original question with precision and accuracy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The question relates to the Health Service review, and the introduction of, for example, clinical audit is extremely important. As to the Bill itself, those aspects of it that require statutory changes will not be implemented until the Bill is passed. If I were to interpret the question as narrowly as the hon. Lady suggests, I should have to answer, "Nothing." I described the money that has been spent on the National Health Service review—on desirable things, not on the idiotic things that publicity earlier this year implied lay behind the White Paper.

NHS Pay Disputes

Mr. Hague: T: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether pay disputes involving any group of National Health Service workers have been to arbitration since 1974.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, Sir.

Mr. Hague: I welcome today's talks on the ambulance dispute, but does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his answer exposes the double standard of Opposition spokesmen and union leaders in calling for it to be referred to arbitration, while never referring any dispute to arbitration when Labour was in office? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to point out that referring one claim to arbitration would be very unfair to the majority of Health Service workers, who settled their claims without recourse to industrial action?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be unfair to other workers, and an impossible way of running the Health Service, if groups of people only had to go on strike long enough to win their way to arbitration. I do not believe that the people who demanded arbitration ever seriously expected that it would be resorted to. Nor do I imagine that the Labour party, in supporting them, ever expected that either—Labour never went to arbitration in similar circumstances. We are all glad to hear of the talks today. The management has always made it clear that it is prepared to re-enter talks to resolve the dispute on the basis that it described—and talks have started today on that basis. I trust that every right hon. and hon. Member hopes that those talks will succeed and that the dispute will be resolved.

Mr. Strang: I hope, as the Secretary of State does, that the talks will succeed. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, judging from his utterances earlier in the dispute, the best contribution that he can make throughout the talks at the Advisory, Conciliation and


Arbitration Service is to keep his mouth firmly shut on the respective merits of the management and trade union claims.

Mr. Clarke: My remarks throughout the dispute have been consistent——

Mr. Tony Banks: Yes—consistently bad.

Mr. Clarke: In attempts to inflame the dispute remarks were attributed to me that I trust those who attributed them will not repeat.
The Government and the Health Service management have made it clear that they are anxious to see talks resumed, and the basis on which they could resume has also been clear for some weeks. I am glad that common sense has dawned and that talks have restarted.

Mr. Bowis: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, rather than invoking arbitration, the concept of pendulum pay bargaining may be worth considering? That may be a way of meeting the public demand that disputes in which health, life and safety are put at risk should not be part of our industrial relations system.

Mr. Clarke: I am keenly in favour of pendulum arbitration in small manufacturing companies, and so on—linked usually with single-union deals and no-strike agreements. The ambulance dispute involves so many issues that it is unlikely that those elements could play a part—and the unions with which we are dealing would never enter into a no-strike agreement of the sort that some companies have entered into with unions.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State accept that the whole House will welcome the fact that his Department has now begun talks with ambulance staff, and the whole country will want those talks to continue until they succeed? In the light of his own repeated refusal to intervene to find a solution, on the ground that management must be free to manage, will he assure the House that management is now free to negotiate and, in particular, that if management wishes to include arbitration or a pay mechanism in the solution, he will not invervene to prevent that?

Mr. Clarke: As I said in my earlier answer, not only did no Labour Secretary of State ever refer such a dispute to arbitration, but no Labour Secretary of State ever intervened in the way that the hon. Gentleman has been urging me to throughout the dispute. If he took the office of Secretary of State for Health, to which he aspires, and then decided that if a strike went on for long enough he would intervene to tell managers to pay the claim, I can only say that he would be a disastrous holder of that office, from the point of view of the National Health Service.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best possible way to facilitate a speedy and honourable end to the dispute is not to make party political comments—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hayes: Such comments inflame the situation and a sensible silence by Ministers, officials, Opposition spokesmen and everyone else involved will lead to a quicker end to the dispute.

Mr. Clarke: Of course, advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) about the need to keep

silent on these grave matters is welcome, and I shall certainly take note of it. On the earlier part of his question, negotiations today are being carried on by the chief executive on behalf of the National Health Service executive, and they will ultimately no doubt move on to the Whitley council. Those concerned are free to negotiate there, and that is where the dispute should be resolved. It is the desire of many hon. Members to bring in a party political and a Government context and to keep attributing to me every aspect of the dispute that gives rise to the feeling that has been described.

Dental Charges

Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effects of the introduction of charging for dental inspections.

Mr. Rees: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effects of the introduction of charging for dental inspections.

Mr. Freeman: The number of dental examinations in the September quarter of 1989, the latest available statistics, at approximately 7·4 million, represented a reduction from the year previously, at approximately 7·9 million. With a few more quarters' statistics, the underlying trend will become clearer. The annual number of dental examinations has gone up gradually in recent years, and we expect this long-term trend to continue.

Mr. Smith: In the light of that answer, can the Minister explain how, as a result of a survey among all dentists carried out in my constituency, the Vale of Glamorgan, it was shown that dental inspections have decreased by up to 20 per cent? The time lag between inspections has now gone beyond the recommended level and it is particularly worrying that 18-year-olds are not having inspections, but merely waiting until they need treatment. When asked to comment, dentists said that the dental health of the nation is suffering and that it will get worse. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

Mr. Freeman: It is important to appreciate that the charge for examinations under the National Health Service is £3·45, which represents 75 per cent. of the cost. No one disputes that examinations appear to have decreased immediately after the introduction of charges, but we believe strongly that the long-term trend of an increase in examinations will shortly reassert itself.

Mr. Rees: It is no use for the Minister to hope for the long-term trend to reassert itself. This is an important element of preventive medicine, and in all areas the number of inspections is falling. It is a serious matter. What will the Government do about it?

Mr. Freeman: Some 50 per cent. of all patients who have National Health Service examinations are exempt from the charges. We believe that the long-term trend will reassert itself. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is a hope and an expectation, but we firmly believe that the upward trend will continue.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that people over 18 have a good cognisance of the value of preventive medicine, having received free medical care until school-leaving age, and that asking them to make a


modest contribution to the cost of dental inspection in no way undermines our ability to keep their health high on our list of priorities?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The money raised through charges goes back into the Health Service and, indeed, helps to improve the quality of dental care.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to benefit dental patients is to make further progress on the new dental practitioners' contract, which will improve the relationship between patients and their dentists? Many members of the dental profession support it, but others have grave doubts. It would greatly assist those charged with the responsibility of persuading their colleagues to accept the new contract if my hon. Friend could tell the House—not now, but very soon—that the Government have no plans to increase dental charges.

Mr. Freeman: I cannot give my hon. Friend that commitment—he would not expect me to be so specific—but I can say that we have received some very positive encouragement from the profession. We shall not know the final outcome for another six months, but we are very encouraged by the response so far.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister provide evidence to back up his assertion that, to use his own words, the long-term trend will reassert itself in the form of an increase in the number and proportion of people undertaking dental examinations? Does not the current plain evidence suggest that the present charging structures need to be reversed, and that the current trend is making nonsense of the emphasis on preventive medicine?

Mr. Freeman: I have cited the statistics as fairly as I can. There was a reduction of 6 or 7 per cent. in two comparable quarters. It is not surprising that some deferment of examinations and some reduction in the number of patients going for treatment should follow the introduction of charges, but we hope that the long-term trend will indeed reassert itself when the 50 per cent. of people who have to pay charges appreciate that the treatment is good value for money.

Community Care

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about community care for the profoundly mentally handicapped in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeman: We have received a number of representations. The Government are actively encouraging the development of a range of well co-ordinated health and social services for mentally handicapped people and their families.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend ask the chairman of the North West regional health authority to see for himself the superior quality of care provided by voluntary homes such as Brookvale in Bury, South—and provided at half the cost of that provided by Bolton's crisis-ridden neighbourhood network homes?

Mr. Freeman: Yes, I will ask the chairman to do that, and I am sure that he will visit Brookvale. I hope to be in Bolton myself in May, and to join my hon. Friend in visiting some of the hospitals in his constituency.

Mr. Eastham: While we are discussing seriously handicapped people in the north-west, may I draw to the Minister's attention the case of Cranage Hall? Many Manchester Members have received correspondence expressing grave concern about possible closure from people who do not know what they will then do about their handicapped children.

Mr. Freeman: I am not familiar with that case, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me I will give him a full response.
Some 800 hospital patients in the north-west have been resettled in the community, with proper funding from the health authorities. That is a very creditable record.

Mr. Sumberg: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in saluting the work of Brookvale and its excellent staff in my constituency. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that it is a fine example of co-operation between public funding and private giving? He is welcome to come and see some of the work being done there.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are many examples of both the private sector and the charitable sector co-operating with district health authorities and local authorities in providing services for the mentally handicapped.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware of the presentation by Barnardo's to Members of Parliament last week about the daunting problems of mentally handicapped young people in the north-west and elsewhere? Is he aware of the protests by parents that their children, after their school years, often go from school to scrap heap, and that they are increasingly denied speech therapy even during their school years? Will he meet representatives of Barnardo's as a matter of urgency to hear at first hand their plea for immediate action?

Mr. Freeman: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dickens: I thank my hon. Friend for the additional resources that the Department of Health has given to the north-west, in response to representations from all north-west Members of Parliament of all parties, but will he be sure not to approve the closure of any mental hospital in the north-west until he is fully satisfied that adequate alternatives have been developed? That is most important.

Mr. Freeman: I give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance. I thank him for referring to the increase in cash resources for the north-west—of 7·21 per cent.—which should permit a real development of services.

Family Planning

Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the family planning services.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government continue to regard family planning as an important preventive service which contributes to maternal and child health and to the stability of family life.

Mr. Meale: The Minister is aware that there are more than 1,800 family planning clinics in Britain, but is she also aware that, because of the new capital charges, many district health authorities may be encouraged to sell those premises rather than pay the price of retaining them?

Mrs. Bottomley: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. The fact is that a growing number of individuals are choosing to go to their general practitioners rather than to family planning clinics. I understand that the seven places that provide family planning services in the hon. Gentleman's own district health authority, amounting to a total of 58 sessions, are quite secure.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend has a long record of interest in the matter. Will she confirm that the district health authorities, as well as the family practitioner services, have a role to play in family planning and that that is not unconnected with the worrying upward trend in teenage abortions?

Mrs. Bottomley: In our guidance to the health authorities we make it clear that we see a role for them in providing family planning clinics, particularly for the young. We are sponsoring three research projects—in Hackney, Milton Keynes and south Sefton—to find out how services could better be provided for young people.

Ms. Harman: Does the Minister not realise that, because of cash limits, one quarter of all health authorities are cutting their family planning services and that some, such as Chichester, Cambridge and Trafford, are closing all their family planning clinics? Will she promise to carry out a review because otherwise there will be an increase in unplanned pregnancies?

Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, the Opposition are showing their preference for places rather than patients. The evidence clearly shows that patients have increased their use of family doctors by 37 per cent. in the past 10 years and that they have reduced their use of family planning clinics. General practitioners could not provide family planning services at all in the National Health Service until 1976. The evidence is clear that skills have been built up, that training has improved and that patients are demonstrating that they would rather go to their general practitioner to discuss these subjects than to a clinic—in the order of 2:1.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that no decision will be reached about Trafford's family planning services until next month, so the assertion by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) was wrong? The hope is that the family planning services in Trafford will continue as usual.

Mrs. Bottomley: If agreement cannot be reached locally about a substantial change of health premises use, the matter comes to Ministers. I assure my hon. Friend that no case has come to Ministers for decision. It is for the district health authorities to ensure adequate provision in the light of local circumstances and the proper use of resources.

Trent Regional Health Authority

Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Trent regional health authority; and what matters he expects to discuss.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have no plans for a special meeting with Sir Michael Carlisle at the moment, but I shall be meeting the chairmen of all the regional health authorities in March to discuss a range of issues.

Mr. Duffy: Given the recent allocation to the Trent authority for 1990–91 and the certainty that the increased distribution to its constituent health authorities will be absorbed by inflation, can the Minister assure me that the Sheffield health authority will not find that it has to retrench because of capital limits as well as cash revenue limits and that it will not be driven to restricting the services that it provides?

Mrs. Bottomley: In view of the increased resources to the Health Service generally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are major opportunities to provide high quality care. With increasing expectations and changing demographic patterns, all health authorities must be sure that they use their resources to the best effect. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the capital programme in Sheffield is the biggest in the Trent region, with improvements of the order of £38 million taking place at the Northern general hospital.

Mr. Michael Morris: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the National Audit Office report, "Financial Management in the National Health Service", which itemised the basic problem that the Treasury agreed a certain figure for pay and prices and the Department issued a different one? Can the chairman of the Trent health authority have confirmation from my hon. Friend that in the coming year pay that is agreed nationally will be fully funded nationally?

Mrs. Bottomley: The pay levels are very much what we anticipated and funded. It is clear that all regional and district health authority chairmen have to ensure that resources are used effectively and properly to take account of pay and of patients' needs.

Newham General Hospital

Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when stage 3 of the development of Newham general hospital will be complete.

Mr. Freeman: I understand that phase III of the Newham hospital is unlikely to start until after 1995. If further resources become available to the North East Thames regional health authority through an improvement in land sales income, the capital programme will be reviewed.

Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware that that reply will cause bitter disappointment and a sense of betrayal in the London borough of Newham, where phase III has been a central plank of Newham's future services since 1984 when the regional health authority gave its approval and put phase III into its capital programme? Is not it crazy and immoral that the National Health Service is funded partly by property deals, and now that high interest rates have


knocked the bottom out of the market we shall not get our hospital? Is the Minister aware that it is doubtful that he will save much money because there will have to be extra capital and revenue spending at St. Andrew's hospital and that phase III is doubly necessary because of the expanded population caused by docklands development? In view of all that, will he receive a deputation of Newham Members of Parliament to discuss the matter?

Mr. Freeman: I should be glad to receive such a deputation. In answer to the main part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is not incorrect that the National Health Service should receive something like 20 per cent. of the total capital funding programme from land sales income. That is appropriate. Some £1,000 million is provided by the taxpayer for the capital programme and a further £200 million to £250 million comes from land sales income. That is greatly to be welcomed.

Complementary Medicine

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of practitioners of complementary medicine; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeman: On 29 November 1989 I met, at their request, representatives of the Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and of the General Council and Register of Osteopaths. It was agreed that a further meeting in a few months' time might be helpful.

Mr. Tredinnick: What arrangements is my hon. Friend making to safeguard the freedom of complementary medical practitioners after 1992? Is he aware that there is widespread concern among doctors in the faculty of homeopathy that they are being insufficiently consulted about the radical changes proposed by the EEC?

Mr. Freeman: There are two parts to that question. As regards the first part, because all the professions in complementary medicine are not registered and there are no statutory qualifications needed to practise, there will be no impact of 1992 upon those professions. In regard to homeopathy, because the medicines are natural there should be no effect upon homeopathy as result of EEC proposals on regulating the introduction of medicines.

District Health Authorities

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consequences he expects from the introduction of funding district health authorities by residents in 1991–92.

Mr. Freeman: Districts that send more patients for treatment outside their boundaries than they receive will have an increase in their funding in 1991–92 to enable them to pay, through contracting, for such services. In the first year, we expect that existing patterns of service will be broadly unaltered.

Mr. Coombs: In welcoming that important part of the Government's health proposals, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that they will benefit efficient districts such as Kidderminster, which attracts patients from outside, will next year give £90 million extra to the West Midlands

regional health authority and, most importantly, moll increase competition, efficiency and use of the Health Service for all those patients who most need it?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. An additional fact that represents a change from the earlier working papers on the Health Service reforms is that from 1991–92 the first step in weighted capitation will commence in relation to allocations by regions to districts.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the rebate system for the new community charge is considerably more generous than the old rate rebate system, particularly for those households in the lowest income band who should see, on average, a reduction of 26 per cent. in the proportion of their income that they pay to local government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that they will gain that benefit only if local authorities such as Norwich city council control their expenditure firmly and efficiently and resist the temptation to raise the level of charge?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I confirm that households in the lowest income band will see a lower proportion of their income paid to local authorities. That is because community charge benefits are more generous than rate rebates were and because many of the single adult households who will benefit from the change are pensioners and others on low incomes.
To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I agree that local authorities should make strenuous efforts to keep their expenditure down. It is reported that some have nevertheless suggested a figure of £370 or more for community charge. If we had retained domestic rates instead of the present community charge, that would have led to an increase in domestic rates of 35 per cent., which is totally unacceptable.

Mr. Kinnock: When people live in a Tory district, in a Tory county, under a Tory Government, whom do they blame for their very high poll tax?

The Prime Minister: All local authorities, whatever their political complexion, should strain to keep down their public expenditure so that they can keep down their community charge. Far more Labour than Conservative local authorities are extravagant, with the highest community charges.

Mr. Kinnock: Why does the Prime Minister try to take refuge in fiction? Does she not realise that there are plenty of Conservative Members and others in her party who could tell her that the whole arrangement was a fairy story from the start, to use the words of her hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? Is not that why


only one authority in the whole country has been able to set its poll tax at or below the level specified by the Government?

The Prime Minister: Not all the community charges have been set. We are perfectly well aware, from the answer that I gave previously, that some authorities are taking refuge in the change to have higher expenditure. Therefore, it is our intention, when the community charge is finally set, to say precisely what the increase would have been in domestic rates had that taken the place of the community charge, so that local people can judge whether their authority has been wise or just plain extravagant. They will find that far more Labour authorities and those under no overall control will have far higher spending than most Conservative authorities.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Prime Minister yet understand that people will pay not what might have been but the much higher charges that will be inflicted on them by her and her Government?

The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the majority of local authority spending is met by the taxpayer and by business; the rest is met by the community charge payer. When councils load on extra expenditure, it is borne by the community charge payer. People will be able to see which are the most extravagant authorities. In any case, they will all prefer the community charge to Labour's roof tax.

Mr. Amos: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amos: Will my right hon. Friend persist in her determination to lift the voluntary ban on investment in South Africa, and will she confirm that other countries are investing there?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, President de Klerk has taken fundamental decisions which have gone further in the direction of ending apartheid than those taken by any previous Government. He is determined to end apartheid. In such circumstances, and given the actions that he has taken, we believe it right, step by step, to lift some of the sanctions, in particular the voluntary ones. With regard to the ban on investment, six other Community countries have a voluntary ban. We are not the only country to have a voluntary ban, and we are not suggesting the lifting of those sanctions which are enforced by order.
As my hon. Friend knows, it is not possible to do anything about profit from investment being reinvested in South Africa; sometimes it has a compound nature within and without South Africa. My hon. Friend will be aware that BMW South Africa has just announced the latest £25 million instalment in a five-year investment programme which is worth £120 million. That means jobs, security and an improvement in living standards for the work force, and should be welcomed.

Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michael: What advice has the Prime Minister for the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne)?

The Prime Minister: The report of the Select Committee is serious and must be considered carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) will want to consider what it says very carefully. In due course, and after consultation with others, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President will say when the report should be debated. I would think that it would be courteous to leave it at that.

Mr. Speller: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Speller: What has gone wrong with the arithmetic relating to the community charge in England? Why are low-spending, low-rateable-value authorities such as North Devon and Mid Devon, which previously levied less than £190 per adult, having to levy more than £300? Is that the fault of those who are levying the charge locally or those who organised it?

The Prime Minister: The figure which my hon. Friend mentions of £300 for the community charge in North Devon and Mid Devon is based on an increase of more than 19 per cent. in spending by the county council and 21 and 15 per cent. increases for North Devon and Mid Devon respectively. If the authorities continue their present pattern of spending, the community charge will be £210 in North Devon and £220 in Mid Devon. I hope that Conservative authorities will maintain their present tradition of prudent budgeting and well-managed services.

Mr. Ashdown: Is inflation still to be the judge and jury of the Prime Minister's Government? If so, how does she explain the fact that Britain's inflation has been higher than the European average for eight out of her 11 years, higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average for nine out of her 11 years and higher than that of any of our industrial competitors for 11 out of her 11 years? Does she realise that if inflation is to be the judge and mortgage misery the charge, with that record there is only one verdict—guilty, guilty and guilty?

The Prime Minister: The present inflation rate, based on the retail prices index, at 7·7 per cent. would have been low for the Labour Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman's Bench chose to support year after year. For us, it is high, and to bring it down remains our priority. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this country's record on increasing jobs and on creating jobs has produced a low level of unemployment of 5·7 per cent., which is lower than that in almost any other country in the Community.

Mr. Jack: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jack: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government would never countenance following policies that would impose a 59·5 per cent. tax rate on wage and salary earners? Has she had a chance to see recent


newspaper reports suggesting that a tax rate of 59·5 per cent. is precisely the policy being pursued by the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that we should never think of putting up a tax rate of 59·5 per cent. and that we shall continue the policy of lower taxation, which has brought about extra enterprise, more jobs and a higher standard of living for this country than it has ever known before. I refer my hon. Friend and Opposition Members to the report, "Social Trends", and I must point out that under our policies the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers contributed not only a larger amount to the Exchequer, but 40 per cent. to the yield of income tax. That is on a policy of reducing taxation which gives incentives.

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clelland: Does the Prime Minister believe that there is any connection between the fact that homelessness increased by 45 per cent. between the end of 1986 and the end of 1988 and the fact that under her Government council house building has fallen from 111,000 per year in the 1970s to only 21,000 per year in the 1980s? Does not that show that the Government lack any concern for the needs of people at the lower end of the income scale?

The Prime Minister: It has been our policy to encourage home ownership, and it has increased from 11·5 million homes in owner occupation to 15 million. Many people have had a chance under our Government that they would never have had under a Labour Government. On homelessness, the Government announced an extra £250 million to help provide homes for the homeless and an

increase in money from the Housing Corporation for housing associations, rising from about £800 million at present to £1,700 million in the next two to three years. That is a large allocation of taxpayers' money for alleviating homelessness.

Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend shocked that ILEA can produce only 137 A-level students in French throughout London? Does not that indicate that years of big spending and comprehensive schools do not necessarily produce the goods?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Big spending does not necessarily produce the best education results and ILEA is proof positive of that. I hope that when ILEA is disbanded very soon the separate district education authorities will have a much better record and a lower level of expenditure than ILEA managed.

Mr. Graham: Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 500,000 people in Scotland cannot pay the poll tax, yet Tory councils are going to put a huge poll tax burden on the people they represent? How many people in the Tory shires will not be able to pay the poll tax and how much of that is due to increased inflation?

The Prime Minister: Bearing in mind that the community charge in Scotland meets only 14 per cent. of the expenditure of local authorities, and that Scotland's earnings are about the fourth highest in the United Kingdom, I believe it is not that people cannot pay their community charge; it may be that some have been led not to pay it on wrong advice of others.

Shipbuilding (Wearside)

Ms. Joyce Quin: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the decision by the European Commission on shipbuilding and ship repair on the Wear.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I saw Sir Leon Brittan on 2 February to discuss the proposed sale of certain sites of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. Sir Leon Brittan made it plain that he would not accept any proposal predicated upon a return to shipbuilding even after the expiry of the five-year period.
I saw the Anglo-Greek consortium yesterday and told it of the Commission's views. I said that limited facilities to undertake a ship repair and refurbishment operation at the NESL North Sands site would be allowed. It is considering the offer. The enterprise zone at Southwick will be designated as soon as possible. It is likely that the Tyne and Wear development corporation will now proceed with its plans to redevelop the St. Peter's Riverside development site.

Ms. Quin: Will the Minister accept that the latest pronouncements of the European Commission in the person of the Government's own appointee, Sir Leon Brittan, are such as to make future shipbuilding on the Wear, even after the five-year period, virtually impossible? Does the Minister's statement mean that the Southwick yard, which is one of the most modern in Europe, will be bulldozed and that it cannot be used for future shipbuilding activities? Will the Minister comment on the secrecy surrounding the agreement with the European Commission in December 1988? Did the Minister understand the agreement that was entered into by the Government at that time? Will he make the details public to us, because they have never been fully revealed?
The Minister's failure to understand has meant that would-be purchasers of North-East Shipbuilders Ltd., or parties which wanted to place orders in those yards, had their hopes raised during last year and then dashed, as it appeared that the European Commission would not allow those activities to take place. The Minister has made play of the enterprise zone. Does he accept that an enterprise zone would have been possible for Sunderland, based on unemployment levels and previous shipbuilding job losses in the town, but that the people of Sunderland, while seeing advantage in an enterprise zone, do not want one in return for the closure of their shipyards and their shipbuilding facilities?
Hon. Members will no doubt raise their constituency interests in supplementary questions, but will the Minister accept that there are important national implications in the decision of the European Commission? At a time when Japan is taking the lion's share of the boom in shipbuilding orders, when German yards are organising joint ventures with their counterparts in East Germany and when Britain has had more job losses in shipbuilding than any other European country, could not the Government have stood up for British shipbuilding and the Sunderland yard more than they have done?
In this connection, will the Minister comment on the editorial in today's Lloyd's List that it is simply unacceptable to have a rump of a shipbuilding industry which is utilised only when the Japanese and South

Korean order books are full? Are not the Government guilty of failing to recognise the value of the shipbuilding industry and the role that it can play in our industrial future?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady asked a variety of questions, and I shall seek to respond to them. On the allegation of secrecy, there has been no secrecy in this matter. She will recall that the whole matter was considered at considerable length by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I had the pleasure of appearing before that Committee and explaining events.
On unemployment in the Sunderland area, the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that, although in December 1988 unemployment was about 26,154, or 15 per cent., I am glad to say that in the 12 months until December 1989, it fell by three percentage points to stand at 12 per cent.
I confirm that it is unlikely that shipbuilding will return to Sunderland. The hon. Lady should bear in mind the fact that the development plans of the consortium developed over a period. I make no criticism of that; I simply state that that is what happened. The plans started off as ship repair and refurbishment plans. Then they embraced an element of shipbuilding. Then shipbuilding became the core of the plans. As recently as January of this year, the plans suggested that all the work should be done at Southwick. It was a constantly developing programme.
The plain truth is that shipbuilding is a cyclical industry. I am afraid that shipbuilding in Sunderland has consumed vast quantities of public money. In no sense would the Government be justified in continuing to subsidise the activity in the way that they previously had.
The hon. Lady should be more bullish about the future of Sunderland. She should bear in mind the fact that we put in place an extensive remedial package which included £45 million worth of remedial measures—in particular, the enterprise zone. I hope that that will create between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs in the town. I believe that the future of Sunderland is extremely good. It has been greatly improved by being based on a diversified, strong local economy, which is what we are achieving.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although the Labour party has no grounds for complaint because of its now near-obsession with commitment to the EEC and the development of broader powers there, will my hon. Friend the Minister seriously consider that there is a serious democratic problem when a non-elected civil servant in Brussels can instruct the British Government and Parliament, irrespective of their wishes, that shipbuilding without special aids cannot continue in a part of this country?
In view of this devastating blow for shipbuilding and democracy in Britain, will the Government begin to wake up to the enormous threat of destruction of our democracy of transferring power from elected Parliaments to the non-elected bureaucracies? What is the point of rejoicing at what is happening in eastern Europe at people's escape from a centralised bureacracy, when that is what we are creating in western Europe?

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid, much though I respect my hon. Friend, that I do not accept his analysis. In December 1988, we notified the Commission of the closure of the yards. We put forward a series of remedial proposals, which were accepted on the basis of the closure of the shipbuilding capacity in Sunderland. If we wish to renotify


any further scheme, we must go to the Commission with the full plans. The Commission has unfettered discretion on whether to approve those plans. That is what has happened, and it is consistent with the practice that has been approved in this place.

Mr. Bob Clay: Does not the Minister accept that, when he says that the Anglo-Greek proposal changed several times, he ignores the fact that the consortium changed them as it tried to keep up with the goal posts that the European Commission and the Department of Trade and Industry kept moving? They began by defining closure as shipbuilding without subsidy changed it to no shipbuilding for five years and now have a scorched earth policy, saying that we cannot retain the assets that would allow for a resumption of shipbuilding after five years.
Is it not the case that even the modest ship repair proposal that is to be allowed will have to have every acre of land and every piece of equipment that is purchased scrutinised in Brussels just to make sure that it may not be used for shipbuilding in the future? Given that British Shipbuilders, the Tyne and Wear development corporation, Sunderland council, the local Members of Parliament, and the Members of the European assembly, all welcomed the Greek proposal for Southwick—I believe that the Minister himself gave it some support—what is the hidden agenda that leads the British Government, in the most subservient way, to give in to every arbitrary and legally dubious whim on which Sir Leon Brittan decides? Can the Minister honestly tell the House that, if the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) had understood what the notorious December 1988 package really meant, he would ever have agreed to it?

Mr. Hogg: I make no criticism of the Greek consortium. The hon. Gentleman knows that it changed its plans. That is not a result——

Mr. Clay: Because of you.

Mr. Hogg: That is not a result of the Department of Trade and Industry changing the goal posts; it was because we pressed the consortium hard on the viability of its proposals—and on whether its plans offered the prospects of good quality and permanent jobs. It was against that pressing that the consortium identified in its plans that the main element would be a return to shipbuilding.
There are mixed views even within Sunderland on this matter. There is a powerful case for saying that it is not in Sunderland's interests to return to shipbuilding, and that Sunderland's economic future would be very much better served by the broadly based and diversified economy that the remedial measures that we have put in place will bring about.

Mr. William Hague: Will my hon. Friend accept support for his position from his hon. Friends, simply because he has no real alternative? Will he take every opportunity to emphasise the positive aspects of what is happening in the area in question? To save further mix-ups of the type that might have happened over the last couple of years, will my hon. Friend also undertake to clarify with the European Commission just how long the conditions that it has set up are meant to be in force?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The European Commission's policy, effectively, is that, during the period when one is required to give notification of a proposal, it will not accept a proposal that is predicated on a return to shipbuilding. I repeat that such a scheme or proposal will not be acceptable to the Commission. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that one needs to be positive about this. The diversified, broadly based economy that our measure will bring to Sunderland is very much in the interests of that town and will free it from independence upon a cyclical industry, which is not in the long-term interests of Sunderland.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: If the private sector wishes to preserve Sunderland for shipbuilding, why is the state, in the person of the Minister, intervening to prevent it? I thought that the Conservative party believed in letting the private sector take a lead in these matters. How does the Minister defend depriving the whole of the north-east of England of intervention funding for its shipbuilding industry, and yet continuing to fund such support for Harland and Wolff in Belfast?

Mr. Hogg: Two separate points are raised in that question, and I shall address them both, if I may. First, in so far as the proposals are predicated on a return to shipbuilding, the Commissioner has made it wholly plain to me that such a proposal would not be acceptable to the Commission.
The hon. Gentleman's second point dealt with private sector against private sector. However, he has omitted to realise that we have a viable private sector alternative for both Southwick and North Sands. For Southwick, we have the enterprise zone and for North Sands, we have the TWDC's St. Peter's Riverside development.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I can tell him now, and I do tell him now through you, Mr. Speaker, that, from the point of view of Sunderland's future, the TWDC prefers its development for North Sands to that of the Greeks.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is it not the case that, in the past 10 years, the north-east has suffered an extremely painful transition from old, declining industries to new, sunrise industries and that employment opportunities have improved dramatically in the past two years? Given that there are plans on the drawing board for a major redevelopment of the centre of Sutherland, it would not be right to take such rearguard action, which presents a nostalgic view of the north-east as a traditional shipbuilding area—which is no longer the case. We should turn our backs on the past and press forward with the future.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a deep knowledge of the problems of the area. In the past 12 months, unemployment has fallen by three percentage points, which is a dramatic improvement.
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point by suggesting that there are real dangers in being too dependent upon a cyclical industry such as shipbuilding. It is better by far for the economy of the town to be broadly based and diverse. That will be the effect of the St. Peter's Riverside development and of the enterprise zone.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the Minister aware that he is talking nonsense when he says that opinion in Sunderland is divided on this issue? Every conceiveable strand of opinion—of the borough council, Members of Parliament, the local Tory newspaper and the chamber of commerce—is satisfied that a return to shipbuilding is in the best interests of Sunderland. Is it not a fact that Sunderland and his Department have been well and truly stitched up by the EEC?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Sunderland has one of the most modern shipyards in western Europe, but we are about to sit and watch it being demolished—that is akin to a scorched earth policy. It will be a crime if the shipyard at Southwick is allowed to be demolished. We should at least keep it mothballed for four or five years, so that the opportunity to build ships again in Sunderland can be taken up when it comes, after his Government have been swept away.

Mr. Hogg: Let us analyse the hon. Gentleman's remarks by considering the last point that he made. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Southwick site should be mothballed for five years—in other words, no productive use should be made of 40 acres for about five years. That cannot be—[Interruption.] That cannot be in the interests of Sunderland, especially when one bears in mind the fact that there will be an enterprise zone on that site, which will create many jobs. We expect that 800 jobs will be created on the part of the enterprise zone now covered by the Southwick site.
So opinion in Sunderland is divided, but there is also a division between what people say in public and what they say in private. There is a strong opinion in the town that recognises the dangers of being dependent upon a cyclical industry, and which sees the advantages of the enterprise zone at Southwick and of the TWDC's development at North Sands. There is a great deal of support for them and, on reflection, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join that support.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is it not true that shipbuilding is still a labour-intensive industry? That is why, in relatively advanced economies such as Japan, shipbuilding, with the exception of the recent cyclical upsurge, has had a reduced importance in its economy. It is a complete mirage to offer people false hope that an industry such as shipbuilding is an industry of the future, especially bearing in mind the appalling history of awful management and poor labour relations in that industry and the huge subsidy that must be paid for each ship built in Europe.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am afraid that the track record of shipbuilding in Sunderland over recent years was simply not good. It consumed large sums of public money and required great subsidies. He is right to draw attention to the financial perils associated with returning to shipbuilding in Sunderland. It may be relevant for the House to know that the financial advice that we received on the Greek consortium's plans was that they were fraught with considerable risks of failure.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Opposition day and statements should be confined to shipbuilding and ship repair on the Wear.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the announcement of an enterprise zone a ministerial admission that the Government are in despair at what remains of regional policy? Is not the Minister aware of the evidence that his Department gave to the National Audit Office, that it will cost £30,000 per job to create a job in an enterprise zone and that, for that reason, the Government had virtually abandoned enterprise zones? Is he not also aware that those jobs that were created came largely from elsewhere in the locality, and that those that were new were generally in retailing or wholesaling, and were part-time and low-paid?

Mr. Hogg: I can only suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reflect on these matters before he asks such a question. If he had the time to visit, for example, Scunthorpe or Corby, to mention just two places, he would see the blatant absurdity of the question that he has just asked. Enterprise zones are an extremely effective way of getting assistance to those areas that need it most. The zone will be an important part of the regeneration of Sunderland. A little more homework would improve the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Neville Trotter: There has been reference to the cyclical nature of this industry, but is not a continuing factor the domination of the world market for merchant shipbuilding by far eastern yards, which continue to offer ships at prices that are millions of pounds less than are quoted in Europe? Is it not unrealistic to expect that to change? Will not Sunderland's future be better with high-tech industries that will be attracted by the enterprise package? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the package is already proving successful in attracting industries with a future that is bright and that it will reflect future pride and glory on the town of Sunderland, in the way that shipbuilding has in the past?

Mr. Hogg: I can indeed give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. He has been a powerful advocate of the interests of his part of the country. He is entirely right to say that we have seen some important industries coming into the north-east. He is most certainly right to draw attention to the capacity that exists for shipbuilding in the far east, where many shipyards have been mothballed. I question very much whether shipbuilding will be the highly profitable industry that some Opposition Members suggest.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the Minister aware that I attended a conference recently in America where the discussion was based on getting goods, men and equipment across the Atlantic in case there was a war in Europe? The conclusion of the conference was that there was a marked shortage of merchant shipping to carry out those tasks. Therefore, how is it that, when there is a shipyard in Sunderland with the best equipment and skilled men for building ships, the Government intend to go abroad to increase Britain's merchant shipping? Is not that ridiculous?

Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, we tried to find a bidder for the NESL yard for many months before the decision was snade in December 1988 to close it. I am afraid that, for many years, shipbuilding in Sunderland was making enormous losses and had to be


subsidised by public money to a huge extent. It is not right, and is not a proper use of public assets, to continue with that policy, and we shall not do so.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister has sought to blame Leon Brittan for the decision, but has also sought to argue in the House that it was the right decision. Will he clarify whether, in talking to Leon Brittan, he urged the case for the consortium to be allowed to go ahead on behalf of local jobs or simply accepted Leon Brittan's decision—or even welcomed it?

Mr. Hogg: I have not tried to blame anybody; I have explained the situation. The Commissioner made it clear in discussion—I urged the contrary point of view—that he would not allow shipbuilding to return to Sunderland in the circumstances being proposed by the Greek consortium. That is the explanation that I have given the House. When we came to contrast the Greek proposals for Southwick and for North Sands with the alternatives, it was far from clear that, on its merits, the Greek proposal should be preferred. For example, the Greek proposal for the North Sands Riverside development involved taking up to 20 acres of land that would otherwise form part of the TWDC's development. Another factor was that the TWDC development will provide about 850 jobs, which would not have been compatible with the Greek scheme.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that, when the Government decided to install remedial measures in the Sunderland area, they had to go to the EEC for permission for such regional aid and did Her Majesty's Government give the undertaking that the shipyard would be closed? If so, under what regulation did the EEC issue such an edict, when was it debated by the House and what view was taken of it in the House?

Mr. Hogg: On the latter detailed questions, I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman, as he would expect. With regard to the main part of this question, the position in broad terms—I say "broad terms" because it was the subject of extensive evidence before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—is that we had to notify the EEC of the £45 million package of closure aid that we were giving in Sunderland, and that was approved on the basis of the irreversible closure of shipbuilding in Sunderland. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we gave a written undertaking to that effect, I think that the answer is no.

Points of Order

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. Question 74 in my name on today's Order Paper was submitted to the Department of Health on 6 February, but I discovered that it had been transferred to the Northern Ireland Office. I told the Table Office that that was wrong, but I was informed that that was the Department of Health's decision. I pursued the matter, and I have finally received an apology today. It is ridiculous that. if a Northern Ireland Member who takes an interest in the affairs of the kingdom writes to a Department, the matter can be referred to the Northern Ireland Office. Is that, intentionally or unintentionally, another attempt to make Northern Ireland an appendage of the Kingdom rather than a full party to it?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, because it has enabled me to look carefully into the matter.
As the House well knows, I and my predecessors in the Chair have frequently ruled that the transfer of questions from one Department to another is a matter for Minister, and that the Chair cannot intervene.
However, on this occasion, the Department of Health has clearly recognised that it made an error in transferring the hon. Gentleman's question to the Northern Ireland Office, since it has reappeared on today's Order Paper addressed to the Secretary of State for Health in its original position in the shuffle.
I understand also that Question 135 from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was about to be transferred in error to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it was kept after representations from the hon. Gentleman. Question 142 from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was similarly transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland without apparent justification, and has not been re-transferred.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has not in the end suffered from the erroneous transfer, but it does appear that the Departments concerned, in particular the Department of Health, have not taken sufficient care over the transfer of questions which hon. Members have a right to expect. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has received an apology from the Department of Health.

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to the Education (Student Loans) Bill, and it is one of which I gave brief notice to you and to the Under-Secretary of State with special responsibility for higher education.
Last night, the Secretary of State for Education and Science issued a press statement announcing that he might amend the Bill to force or coerce university and college authorities into what he described as "co-operating" with the administration of the already discredited student loan scheme. That would mark a further major departure from the scheme's administration as approved by this House.
As the Secretary of State must have contemplated that idea for many weeks, do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman has yet again shown contempt for this House, by waiting until after the Third Reading before


making his announcement, and by making a press statement rather than a statement to the House? Have you received any intimation whether the Secretary of State intends to make a statement to the House, as he should?

Mr. Speaker: I have not received any such intimation—and I am, of course, aware that the Bill is currently under consideration in another place.

Dame Peggy Fenner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will be aware of the dastardly attack made on the Father of the House at the weekend. He is not at all well today, and cannot take his usual place in this Chamber. Would it be in order for you, Mr. Speaker, to send him, on behalf of the House, good wishes for his health and for his speedy return?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House shares the hon. Lady's sentiments. I sent the Father of the House a message on Monday, but was unaware that he was so unwell today. I shall do as the hon. Lady suggests.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the news to which my point of order refers only broke after 12 o'clock, it was not possible for me to table a private notice question on the decision by British Steel to close Ravenscraig, the steelworks in my constituency, for another week from 25 March. Such a decision, arising from a short-term reduction in demand, greatly angers the steel workers and the public in general in Scotland, and is capable of gross misinterpretation if Ministers cannot be called to account immediately and make a statement. Has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State for Scotland sought leave to make a statement, to allay any misunderstanding that might arise?

Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) makes a very good point. The production pause to which he refers is a bad decision, dictated by short-term considerations. I emphasise to you, Mr. Speaker, how important it is for the Government to keep the House informed of developments. A great deal of anxiety is felt about the future of the steel industry in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the remarks of both hon. Gentlemen will be conveyed through the usual channels.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner). You will be aware, Sir, that the incident at the Royal Albert hall last Saturday night involved acts of violence against several right hon. and hon. Members. During the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool,

Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), a smoke bomb was thrown, and various flour bombs were thrown throughout the proceedings—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those events took place in another chamber—the chamber of the Royal Albert hall. I share the hon. Lady's concern, but they are not strictly a matter of order for this place.

Miss Widdecombe: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that those incidents were part of a picket by a group called the "Stop the Amendment" campaign. Various hon. Members are closely associated with that campaign. Do you, Mr. Speaker, think that it is honourable conduct for hon. Members to be associated with such a campaign?

Mr. Speaker: If anything of that kind occurred in this place, I would take a very poor view of it.

Mr. David Alton: Further to the points of order raised by the hon. Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), Mr. Speaker. The whole House will have been disturbed that the most senior figure in this House, the Father of the House, was left after a cowardly attack on Saturday night with his arm in a sling and with a blackened eye, having been pushed to the ground and his head crushed against a lamp post. He had been explaining to a perfectly proper public meeting the details of a Bill currently before Parliament.
That must certainly be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. Are you prepared to call upon the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to investigate that incident? Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it has implications for right hon. and hon. Members who go about their proper duties in pursuit of parliamentary democracy and who, in the course of doing so, are subject to thuggery and intimidation? Surely that cannot be right.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will judge that to be an absolutely reprehensible episode. However, I cannot have responsibility for the safety of Members when they are outside the Chamber. Of course I have great concern for the Father of the House. As I have already said, I have sent him a message, and I shall do so again today.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to what the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said, obviously all hon. Members deplore what happened at the weekend. However, surely it cannot be in order for the hon. Lady to stand and impugn other hon. Members of the House and to say that somehow they endorsed or had some knowledge of the attack that took place, or knew that it was going to take place. That is to impugn the integrity of those who happen to disagree with her. Surely she should withdraw that imputation?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better get on with the Opposition day debate.

Unadopted Roads

Mr. Barry Field: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedures whereby householders and frontagers may seek the making up and adoption of a road by a local authority; and for connected purposes.
I know how anxious the House is to debate the Royal Shakespeare Company, because nothing can be nearer to the Labour party's manifesto than "A Midsummer Night"s Dream". However, I shall limit my remarks to 10 minutes.
The Bill is aimed at bringing up to date and simplifying the law on private or unadopted streets. It is a tangled area of the law and one which causes a great many problems and misunderstandings. Those familiar with and involved in highway law are only too well aware that private streets often mean trouble. The perception of the public—the home-owners and frontagers—is that, under the existing rating system which is being phased out with the introduction of the community charge in five weeks' time, owners of properties in private streets usually pay lower rates, and the property prices are often lower than for surrounding dwellings, fronting adopted roads.
What so many of those home-owners often fail to understand are the possible consequences of private street status, and many get a nasty shock when they find that they are liable for accidents, and that they have to make up the road surface, and dig up and re-lay the road for water, gas and electricity, often completely at their own expense.
At first sight, to many people the price differential, and in the past the small differential in the rates bill, have seemed thoroughly attractive in the short term. However, in the long term, the liabilities accompanying a private highway far outweigh the small benefits passed on by the rating authority for the lack of a paved footpath, a highway or street lighting. Some people prefer the quiet life of an unadopted road. My Bill contains no element of compulsion.
Much of the present legislation dates back to the 19th century, and although some new developments involve private streets, those generally cause relatively few problems. There are well-established procedures whereby developers use the advance payments code to agree with the highway authority to make up the streets throughout a new estate. A consultation document has recently been produced by the highway authorities and local authority associations about how the law on unadopted roads should be improved.
The Bill allows district councils to contribute to the cost of street works. At present, they are prevented from doing so. Frontagers to public footpaths should have to pay for the associated street works, and vice versa. The cost of making up a public footpath should be included in the cost of the street works.
The Bill will provide increased flexibility for serving notices, and will ensure that there is provision to recover the cost of street works on behalf of a frontager, when the owner is unknown.
The Bill will allow authorities to disapply the advanced payments code when they decide to do so, and will empower authorities to release deposits after four years. In some cases, authorities have held deposits against private street works. The value has dwindled because of inflation and, with the passage of time, has become meaningless

when measured against the initial cost of the road works. However, the Bill would include provisions to allow an authority to decide a rate of interest on deposits, and would include a fine of £1,000, for non-compliance, when the builder or the owner does not carry out the work to the satisfaction of the highway authority.
This potholed area of the law is not all gloom and doom. I am pleased to be able to say that local authority associations and the house builders have formulated a new agreement, which will be an improvement on the old one.
It has been estimated that the country contains more than 4,000 miles of unadopted road, and that it would cost over £2,000 million to make them up. As so often happens, Scotland has already addressed the problem: the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Security for Private Road Works (Scotland) Regulations 1985, SI 1985/2080, make the law on private streets much simpler, and remove some of the difficulties.
It appears that there is complete agreement within the Department of Transport that the current system in England and Wales needs to be simplified. Unfortunately, it is not a high priority for the Government, and to make any changes will be a complex and technical task. Nevertheless, given the existence of 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales and the phasing out of domestic rates, I feel that the system cannot he allowed to go on bumping along in a rough and ready way as it has, in many ways, since the 1930s.
One of my constituents has spent much of his retirement researching the legal liability of his own unadopted road, tracing it back to the Isle of Wight Highways Act 1813, which was subsequently repealed in 1925. Until that repeal, any island road that had been dedicated to the public was automatically repairable by the local authority. That small extract of the legal history of just one road in my constituency will, I think, give the House a taste of the complexity of the unadopted road system—five years of research by a retired civil servant endeavouring to establish the legal and financial liabilities for the unadopted road running past his house.
I understand that the last Department of Transport survey was carried out in 1972: it was established then that England and Wales contained 40,000 unadopted roads, amounting to 4,000 miles. It is thought that no significant change has been made since the survey.
The main thrust of my Bill, which provides for the paving, levelling and lighting of unadopted roads, is to ensure that frontagers can in future make their decisions on the basis of a simple majority, either in number or in the value of property. It is extraordinary that the nation can elect a Government by a simple majority, while residents whose houses front on to unadopted roads are prevented from making provision for their own comfort, enjoyment and safety—and for enhancing the value of their properties—by complex, outdated and outmoded legislation that requires everyone to be in total agreement before works can proceed. That cannot be right, and I know that I speak for thousands of home-owners when I say that we look to the House to replace a musty, outmoded tangle of legal nightmares with modern legislation that is easily available and acceptable to every estate that wishes to make up its roads, and to have them adopted by its local council.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Malcolm Moss, Mr. Ian Taylor, Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. David Evans.

UNADOPTED ROADS

Mr. Barry Field accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedures whereby householders and frontagers may seek the making up and adoption of a road by a local authority; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Opposition Day

9TH ALLOTTED DAY

Electricity Industry

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's obsession with electricity privatisation which is pushing up electricity prices and undermining Britain's commitment to reducing acid rain.
The electricity industry has not yet been privatised, but electricity prices are already being pushed up unnecessarily, to add to the industry's assets. The Government's commitment to combat acid rain is in danger of being set aside in an effort to reduce the industry's liabilities. That is being done to suit the City, which wants to take over the assets of the electricity industry but not to take on any of its liabilities. We can be fairly sure that the needs of the City will be given priority because the present Secretary of State has only one task: to sell off the electricity industry before the next general election, whatever the cost to the consumer, the balance of payments, the prospects for British industry or the damage to the environment.
We know from answers to parliamentary questions that the Secretary of State is buying advice on electricity privatisation from no fewer than 47 different companies, at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of nearly £37 million. Those companies include no fewer than 13 firms of estate agents and 10 firms of accountants. There are marketing advisers, people who are described as head hunters and even salary advisers. There is even a firm called Anderson, Mori and Rabinowitz, which is improbably described as a firm of Japanese lawyers.
Not one firm on that list of 47 is advising the Secretary of State on the interests of the consumer. Furthermore, not one of those 47 firms is advising the Secretary of State on the environmental aspects of privatisation. Nothing could more clearly show what the Government's priorities are.
That is why the Secretary of State announced last Monday what might be described as the third leg of the Tory inflationary spring treble. Domestic consumers will have to pay more for their electricity, just as their poll tax falls due and their housing costs increase. It is almost as though the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked each Cabinet Minister to make a special contribution to inflation, since I have not even mentioned the fares increases or the increased water charges that will also be due.
The electricity price increase, of £30 to £40 for domestic consumers, is quite unnecessary and was imposed by the Government. It does not result from rising costs. During the last three years, the generating boards' fuel costs have fallen by 7 per cent., but the average price charged for electricity has increased by 13 per cent. and the generating boards' profits have increased by 90 per cent. Under the new coal contract, rightly imposed by the Secretary of State, fuel costs to the generating companies are to fall further, as British Coal is obliged to absorb most of the cost of inflation.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the last five years, the cost of electricity to domestic consumers has fallen in real terms and that the cost of electricity to industrial consumers has fallen by 10 per cent.? However, when the last Labour Government were in power, the price to domestic consumers went up significantly in real terms over five years.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is what might be described as an old stager in our debates on energy. The general circumstances surrounding energy prices world wide are different from what they were 10 to 15 years ago.
Last year, the electricity industry as a whole made a profit of £777 million. Within that sum, the London board made a profit of £72 million, Southern board £65 million, Eastern board £70 million, East Midlands £50 million and Yorkshire £49 million. Only two of the remaining boards made a profit of less than £29 million last year.
The industry is doing so well that last November, the chief executive of National Power, Mr. John Baker, said that there was a good chance that domestic electricity consumers would get through 1990 with no price rises. But Mr. Baker had not reckoned with the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman was so keen to push up prices to domestic consumers that he did not even wait to find out what costs the area boards would incur under privatisation.
When my office rang every board last week, they said that they did not know quite what their price increases would be, because they still did not know from the generating companies or the grid company what prices they would be charged for electricity or for the transmission of electricity. All they knew was that the Secretary of State had said that they could put prices up by a bit more than the rate of inflation and they certainly intended doing that. They all promised to ring back when they knew anything more, but none of them rang back. It is quite clear that the increase is unnecessary and unwanted. It was invented in Whitehall as a response to pressures from the City.
The Secretary of State said last Monday that the price increases that he has imposed will not be much of an increase in real terms. An increase of £30 or £40 may not be very real to him or to his well-heeled City advisers or even to the Prime Minister—despite the extra costs of her electric bath treatment—but a £30 to £40 increase will be real enough to pensioners, to families whose child benefit has been frozen, and to millions of others, coming as it does on top of mortgage interest rate increases, rent increases, the poll tax and fare increases, not to mention those newly privatised water charges.
It is all unnecessary; it is just intended to help the Secretary of State sell off the electricity industry. That decision makes it clear that the Secretary of State could sacrifice anything on the altar of privatisation. We cannot really blame him for that; it is his job.
Not only the consumers have been given low priority. We now hear stories—leaks from the generating companies and from the Department of Trade and Industry and counter-leaks from the Department of the Environment—that the Secretary of State is prepared to jettison the fight against acid rain if that will help keep the ship of privatisation afloat. Before we consider what is happening now, it is necessary to look at what has happened over the last decade.
By the end of the 1970s, it was generally accepted that emissions of sulphur dioxide from power station chimneys helped cause acid rain. In Europe, particularly in West Germany—the only other country in Europe with a large modern coal industry—they started to set standards to reduce those SO2emissions. The West Germans eventually set about installing flue gas desulphurisation equipment on all their modern coal-fired power stations—a total of 33,000 MW. That has put them at least a decade ahead of Britain.
In Britain, we behaved like the environmental chancers that the Government are. Nothing has yet been done, despite pressure from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, scientists and the general public. In 1984 and again in 1985, the Cabinet rejected proposals for action. Finally, in 1986 the Prime Minister announced that Britain would install FGD equipment on 6,000 MW of generating plant. But nothing was done. To this day, not a single major power station in Britain has been fitted with FGD equipment.
Not only did Britain do nothing, but our Government tried to prevent the setting of European standards, and succeeded in delaying and watering down those standards. All that was done in what has become Britain's role of tail-end Maggie—whingeing and whining that Britain knows best, and in any case it would all be very difficult and expensive.
In 1988, the British Government had to accept target emission reductions of 20 per cent., by 1993, 40 per cent. by 1998 and 60 per cent. by 2003. Those are among the lowest standards in Europe and were accepted by our European partners only because British Ministers argued that the medium-sulphur British coal industry needed to be protected and that flue gas desulphurisation equipment would take a long time to install. On the basis of those statements and arguments, honestly made, our European partners agreed to that reduction in standard. To move away from the introduction of FGD equipment will mean that our European partners could rightly demand, immediately, higher standards than the ones we have adopted.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the largest employers in Scotland and in Renfrewshire is Babcocks, which has been encouraged to develop power stations which would eventually reduce acid rain? The news he has mentioned. will be a catastrophic blow to constituents in Renfrewshire, who will probably face further job losses. It seems that every announcement by the Government creates further and deeper unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is perfectly right and I shall move on to the industrial consequences of the Government's short-sighted policy in a moment.
Eventually, Britain had a programme to install FGD equipment on 12,000 MW of generating capacity. That policy was confirmed as recently as mid-December by an Environment Minister and it was estimated to cost £2 billion. The programme was to start with the installation of FGD equipment at the 4,000 MW Drax power station, which would by itself meet the 20 per cent. target reduction for 1993.
Last November, at the United Nations, the Prime Minister made a speech which The London Standard


moderately described in a memorable headline as "Maggie's plan to save the world". It reported that she had proclaimed:
We already have a £2 billion programme of improvements to reduce acid rain emissions from our power stations.
It now appears that that is no longer true. It seems that the Prime Minister has given up her plans to save the world. She appears to have found a higher calling; she wants the electricity industry sold off before the next general election.
Presumably the 47 expensive advisers have told the right hon. Lady that a £2 billion programme to clean up the environment is the sort of spending that the City does not like, at least not if it is done by an organisation that it wants to buy on the cheap.
The installation of FGD equipment at Drax will now not be sufficiently far forward to meet even the 20 per cent. target reduction set for 1993, so the generating companies are asking the Government if they can burn low-sulphur coal to make up some of the difference, the oil refineries and industrial users are being asked to make even bigger reductions in their emissions to make up for the shortfall. They are advising everyone that they do not think they will be able to make up that shortfall. The generating companies have said that they would like to be able to import low-sulphur coal instead of installing FGD towards the later and higher targets.

Mr. Peter Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what his policy really is? On the one hand he wants British coal to continue to be burnt, and he wants it to be burnt cleanly. On the other, apparently he does not want anybody to pay the price for that clean-up by way of higher prices for electricity. What is he really asking for?

Mr. Dobson: Labour policy is that FGD equipment should have been installed in the 1980s, that it should be installed now, and that the generating companies should get on with the job and thereby meet Britain's international obligations. We believe that the people of Britain would be prepared to pay the price for cleaning up the environment. The Torys' friends in the City are not prepared to pay that price. Although FGD is expensive and takes a time to install, it has the merit that it removes 90 per cent. of sulphur dioxide from chimney emissions.

Dr. Kim Howells: Is it not a fact that electricity revenues increased by £1 billion in 1988–89 and that at least part of the price of the installation of the systems about which my hon. Friend is talking could have come from those revenues?

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend and I think along the same lines; he has anticipated what I intended to say, and I shall come to that point shortly.
The present proposals to substitute low-sulphur coal for the medium-sulphur deep-mined British coal that is currently burned in British power stations will, at best, cut sulphur dioxide emissions by half, because low-sulphur coal contains about half as much sulphur as the average British deep-mined coal. There is no question of using no-sulphur coal, because there is no such thing. Enormous quantities of low-sulphur coal will be required to achieve a reduction similar to that which would be achieved by installing FGD on 12,000 MW of plant, as promised by the Prime Minister in New York.

Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. To deal with the relatively high content of sulphur in British coal, we either spend a couple of billion pounds installing new plant or we import coal from Colombia and other countries in South America. He is against the importation of such coal, but wants immediate expenditure on capital equipment. Which way is he going? He must make up his mind.

Mr. Dobson: I am entirely lost by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I have made it quite clear that capital expenditure should be made, and where the money should come from. I simply do not know why the hon. Gentleman is rabbiting on.
Until now, low-sulphur coal has been given low priority by this short-sighted Government. When they took office, there were 57 collieries in the low-sulphur coalfields of Kent, Wales and Scotland. All the Kent mines have now closed. The number of Welsh mines has been reduced from 37 to six, the number of Scottish mines from 16 to one, and Monkton hall is in mothballs. As a result, British low-sulphur coal capacity has been reduced to a third of its level when the Government took office. If the Secretary of State wants low-sulphur coal, I challenge him to say, either now or in his speech, whether he will insist that Monkton hall be reopened immediately and that the threat of closure be lifted from the remaining six collieries in south Wales. If he will not, it will mean that he prefers foreign coal to British coal.
The Government have encouraged more opencast mining and propose to give it another boost under the Coal Industry Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place. Besides all the environmental problems that result from opencasting, coal from opencast mines in Britain, with the exception of Scotland, has another major disadvantage—a higher sulphur content than deep-mined coal. In both respects, the Government's policy has made it more difficult for Britain to mine the low-sulphur coal that it needs. Therefore, most low-sulphur coal will have to be imported.
That poses other problems. I hardly need remind the House that last year Britain had a record trade deficit of £20,000 million. In cash terms, our trade in gas, oil and coal did little better than break even, and in tonnage terms we had an overall fuel deficit of 14 million tonnes, including 12 million tonnes of coal imports. To meet the 1998 target set by our European partners may require a further 30 million tonnes of low-sulphur coal imports, and 50 million tonnes may be necessary to meet the 2003 target.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) said, that is not the only trade disadvantage that would result from abandoning the FGD programme, because it would also harm British boiler manufacturers, who were hoping for contracts to install the FGD equipment. They have put much money and effort into preparing for that work. Had this short-sighted Government got on with desulphurisation in the 1980s, like West Germany, British companies such as Babcock Power and Northern Engineering Industries would be well placed to compete for contracts to clean up the dreadful chimney emissions in eastern Europe.
However, the latest news means that those companies are likely to be told by the people in eastern Europe to whom they are trying to sell their skills, "Why should we give contracts to you? You have not even done that work


in Britain. You have no experience and you cannot compare with the achievements of Deutsche Babcock." That is another example of the Government's lack of concern for British industry.
Why is FGD to be abandoned or severely cut back? After all, it would best counter acid rain, best help British manufacturing industry, best secure the long-term future of the coal industry and best help the balance of payments. The answer is that the flue gas desulphurisation programme is threatened because it would cost money.
No one should be fooled by the claims that the electricity companies cannot afford it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said, the electricity companies are rolling in money. Last year alone, they repaid £1,779 million to the Government, they self-financed investment of £1,492 million and they still made a profit of £777 million. More than £4,000 million was slushing around in their accounts in one year. If they have a £4,000 million surplus in just one year, they must be able to find £2 billion over the next six or seven years for this vital environmental programme.

Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes much play of the fact that the electricity industry has made a profit of £770 million. Is he aware of the value of the investment in the electricity industry? Does he not agree that, were the same amount of money to be put into the Post Office, the electricity industry would earn more than it does by the supply of electricity?

Mr. Dobson: It appears that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy wants to get rid of the electricity industry and to put the money in the Post Office instead. I must remind him of another point. According to the annual reports of the various electricity boards in England, Wales and Scotland, to which the Secretary of State referred me when I asked him about the value of assets, the total net value of assets is £35,000 million, which the British people have invested. We now understand that the Secretary of State will sell them off to his mates in the City for less than £10 billion. There will be a lot of our money swilling around in the hands of people in the City.
We must accept that a great deal of negotiating is going on. For all I know, all the rumours may have been put out by the electricity industry because it wants to make it appear that it is skint and needs money. Perhaps it will agree to introduce FGD into its power stations, in accordance with the Prime Minister's promise, providing it receives a green dowry from the taxpayer as a sweetener at the time of privatisation. Such a sweetener is not necessary, and should not be given.
Let me make it clear today that the next Labour Government will require the generating companies to meet the European targets—and to meet them by the installation of FGD equipment. Let me also make it clear that we believe that it would not be fair for any excess installation costs which result from the delay now being sought by the companies to fall on consumers. Those extra costs will not result from anything that consumers have done, so any future requests from the companies to pass on such extra costs to consumers will get an unsympathetic reaction from the next Labour Government.
Flue gas desulphurisation equipment can be installed in the sure and certain knowledge that it will work. Once such equipment has been installed, operators have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances without raising

sulphur dioxide emissions. That does not apply to a policy that relies on low-sulphur coal. That is a high-risk policy. For a start, there are severe doubts about Britain's ability to obtain secure supplies of the vast quantities of low-sulphur coal that would be required. Even if they were obtainable, at a reasonable price, the low-sulphur option would be vulnerable to such factors as an unexpected increase in demand for electricity, or the lack of availability of nuclear power from Britain, or even nuclear power imported from France.

Mr. John Hannam: There is an important point about the operation. Is it not a fact that the desulphurisation process on coal with a high sulphur content results in an increase in the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere, thereby increasing the other major problem of the greenhouse effect, whereas using coal with a low-sulphur content, from whatever source, does not involve that process and therefore does not create the increased CO2 effect, which is one of the major problems which the world has to face?

Mr. Dobson: The differences between the two, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are not that large. We have given a clear undertaking to our European partners to reduce acid rain. We should get on with that, rather than pretend that we are making a shabby compromise for the sake of the greenhouse effect. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect; the Government are concerned instead about the counting-house effect in the City.
The low-sulphur option, if pursued, would lead to massive closures of collieries, which could never be reopened. If collieries are closed in part of a shipyard, it would probably be impossible to sink a safe shaft thereafter.
To augment low-sulphur coal by burning natural gas, as some people suggest, would be typical of the Government's wasteful and short-sighted energy policies. It would do even more harm to the coal industry and to the balance of payments. It would also rapidly deplete our natural gas reserves, which should be put to better uses than generating electricity, as laid down in an EC directive.
Not to go ahead with FGD would mean placing less reliance on the most efficient stations on the system. Equally at risk would be those collieries and coalfields which supply such power stations. The British collieries which supply the stations to be converted to low-sulphur coal would also be at risk. The Nottinghamshire coalfield would be most vulnerable, in view of the proposals for coal import facilities on the Humber, and for gas-fired power stations also on the Humber. The low-sulphur-coal approach, according to estimates given to me, could reduce the Nottingham coalfield to just three pits by the end of the decade.
The Secretary of State has been praised for progressing his privatisation programme and for untangling the knotted nonsense that he inherited from his predecessor. I concede that, from that narrow point of view, he deserves credit for the progress which he has made towards the goal of privatisation set for him by the Prime Minister. But I should remind him that there are more important things in the world than pleasing the Prime Minister. That may be an unusual concept for members of the Cabinet, but it is nevertheless true.
I remind the Secretary of State of his own experiences. After the House voted to televise its proceedings, the Prime


Minister wanted the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, to do what he could to delay and obstruct the coming of the cameras. After a time, perhaps as a result of my advice, the Secretary of State rightly decided that it would be better to go down in history as the man who got the cameras in rather than the man who did the Prime Minister's bidding. He showed considerable ingenuity in coming up with a formula for televising the House which was acceptable to nearly everyone. He showed even more courage in telling the Prime Minister that she would have to go along with it.
The Secretary of State should show those characteristics again. He should take the Prime Minister aside and tell her that the fight against inflation and the battle against acid rain cannot be reconciled with Cecil's potty scheme for electricity privatisation. He should tell her to give priority to the consumers and to the environment. He should tell her to choose between pleasing her friends in the City and breaking her public promise at the United Nations.
The privatisation of electricity is already proving expensive to consumers, damaging to the environment, harmful to the balance of payments, crippling to British manufacturers and inflationary. It is time for the Government to think again. Above all, the Secretary of State should not agree to the backsliders' charter on acid rain proposed by the generating companies and his city advisers. Our country and our European neighbours deserve better. The advisers should turn their attention from trying to fiddle the figures to thinking of something more important.
For the last decade, Britain has been the dirty old man of Europe. It is time to look ahead. We should make sure that we lead the way in the international effort to make the new Europe a better and cleaner place, to ensure that, by 2000, the skies are clear, the trees are growing again and the lakes and rivers are restored to their original purity. That is what our people are looking for in the 1990s. They will not forgive those who put privatisation before those hopes and aspirations.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises the significant progress made by this Government in preparing the electricity supply industry for privatisation; welcomes the introduction into the industry for the first time of real, visible and effective competition which will turn the industry from a producer centred monopoly into a truly consumer oriented industry; welcomes the downward pressure that this will put on customers' electricity bills and the upward pressure on standards of service; welcomes this Government's intention to see a radical restructuring and strengthening of pollution control through the Environmental Protection Bill; and welcomes this Government's commitment to complying with the requirements of the European Community's Large Combustion Directive.'.
I do not know what I have done to deserve praise from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), even in such an oblique way. After all, for three years I spent my time trying to nurse him as shadow Leader of the House by feeding him titbits to try to get him to ask sensible questions, but he rarely did so. I suspect that he was trying to establish a passage of time between his obvious and complete lack of grasp of accountancy

principles or economics—I do not know whether that accounted for his demise from his employment with the Central Electricity Generating Board or whether it was election to the House——

Mr. Dobson: I got a better job.

Mr. Wakeham: He got a better job—as a Member of Parliament, no doubt—so that was that.
As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on the televising of the House, he knows that, after the decision of the House, I paused to consider what to do; I think that I paused for about 20 minutes before I went on television and announced that I had accepted the decision of the House. He knows full well that I worked very hard indeed to try to implement that decision, with his co-operation.
Having got over the shock of praise from the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the further opportunity so soon after last week's statement to bring the House up to date with our continuing progress and to put on record the performance of the electricity industry under this Government.
In just six weeks' time, Britain's electricity industry will undergo a dramatic transformation. From the end of March—when 16 new companies will be created—the old electricity supply industry will disappear. In its place, we will establish a competitive market in power. For the first time ever, there will be genuine competition in electricity supply.
The vesting day for the new companies will mark one of the last hurdles for this, the most complex privatisation ever undertaken. From there, the Government will move ahead and complete the privatisation of the industry in the lifetime of this Parliament, just as they have pledged all along. Then, for the first time, workers in the electricity industry and consumers of electricity alike will have the chance to invest in 14 of the 16 new private companies we will be creating, and to take part in the world's biggest and most exciting privatisation.
The motion tabled by the Opposition talks about electricity prices. These are, of course, a matter for the industry and it has yet to announce its proposals for the coming year. I indicated to the House just over a week ago that I saw no reason why there should be any increase in the average price of electricity this year. I am now able to inform the House of my latest thinking. I repeat that it will be for the industry to announce its proposals on prices. These will, of course, vary between the boards, depending on their individual circumstances, as they have always done. The likelihood now is that the average price increase overall for electricity consumers in April should be below the current rate of inflation.
In fact, many industrial customers—those who consume more than 1 MW—will for the first time be negotiating prices in a truly competitive market, and will benefit from price reductions. Where they are not able to do so—perhaps because they need time to negotiate—we have sought an undertaking from the industry that it will use its best endeavours to offer a one-year real price freeze. Overall, I anticipate a significant reduction in the average price paid by customers who consume more than 1 MW.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to finish dealing with prices.
Customers who take below 1 MW will benefit from regulation and the change to the price control that I announced last week, As I said then, I see no reason why the average price to these customers should rise by much more than the current rate of inflation this year. The price control should prevent any further increases before the end of March.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, as a result of the enormous and unnecessary increases in electricity prices in 1988–89, were it not for privatisation, the electricity industry could easily be in a position to reduce prices, rather than simply freeze them?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall address that very point in the latter part of my speech.
I was frankly amazed at the sheer cheek of the motion tabled by the Opposition. The Labour party knows a thing or two about electricity price rises, because it was under the Labour Government that prices rose.

Mr. Martin Flannery: rose——

Mr. Wakeham: Indeed, a former Labour Cabinet Minister stated:
The last Labour Government, of which I was a member … caused a massive increase in electricity charges".—[Official Report, 13 December 1983; Vol. 143, c. 813.]
The size of the increase was staggering. During the last five years of the Labour Government, with inflation raging out of control, domestic prices increased, in current terms, at a rate equivalent to 2 per cent. every six weeks, or a staggering 155 per cent. over the five-year period.
If we look at domestic prices under the last five years of this Government on the same basis, we see that they increased by some 21 per cent. Under Labour, they would have increased at a rate equivalent to that percentage each year.
The picture is clear. Where Labour puts prices up, the Conservatives bring them down. I simply cannot comprehend the Opposition's allegations that preparation for privatisation has put up prices when it is clearly not the case.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr Wakeham: I wish to finish this point. I shall give way in a moment. I may clarify some of the points that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise.
The simple truth, demonstrated by the Opposition motion, is that the Labour party is confused. As usual, Labour Members want it both ways. They oppose the tough line that we have taken with the coal industry, which has resulted in the stabilisation of prices. They oppose the necessity of raising the return on the assets employed in the electricity supply industry, although the return has still not reached the 5 per cent. that they themselves set when they were in power.
The fact is that prices would not be any lower if electricity remained in the public sector, and for many consumers they would be a good deal higher. The reality is that the pressures on the electricity supply industry will all be to hold or reduce prices as competition develops. That will be good news for the consumer.

Mr. Eadie: Using the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, does he agree that there is an element of bare effrontery

when he draws a distinction between the period of Labour Government and that of the Conservative Government? Does he not realise that there was an oil crisis then and that billions of pounds were being passed across the exchanges for oil? Incidentally, if we pursued his policy, we would pass billions of pounds across the exchanges. Does he not realise how many billions of pounds his Government have had as a consequence of North sea oil? It is bare effrontery for the right hon. Gentleman to quote those statistics to the House.

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman likes, I will quote the figures by direct comparison, taking out the inflation factor, which was substantial and caused partly by price rises and partly by oil prices. During the last years of the Labour Government, industrial electricity prices increased by 6 per cent. in real terms and domestic prices increased by 9 per cent. in real terms. In the last five years of this Government, industrial prices fell by 10 per cent. and domestic prices by 8 per cent. in real terms. Industrial prices are lower than they have been since 1973. That is a perfectly good answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Wakeham: No. I must get on a little. I will give way in a minute.
The Opposition are also on shaky ground if they accuse—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) will keep calm for a moment. The Opposition want to raise prices. They do not like it when someone tells them the facts.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I am intrigued by the Secretary of State's analysis. I have listened patiently to him. In December 1973, OPEC quadrupled oil prices. In the mid-1970s we were contemplating a $35 to $40 barrel in money terms. We now have a $19 barrel. World oil prices and, indeed, world energy prices have fallen in real terms. The Secretary of State knows that, and he should not try to take credit for it.

Mr. Wakeham: I was simply stating the facts because the Opposition referred to the price of oil. The important point, which the Opposition cannot wriggle away from, is that, under their policy of seeking a 5 per cent. return on assets, prices today would be higher under a Labour Government than they are under the Conservative Government.
The Opposition are also on shaky ground if they accuse the Government of weakening the protection of the environment. It was this Government who signed the EC large combustion plants directive in 1988. It is this Government who are intent on a radical restructuring and strengthening of pollution control through the Environmental Protection Bill. It is this Government who are in the forefront of international efforts to see that the greenhouse effect is taken seriously.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Wakeham: Is it on the directive?

Mr. Home Robertson: No.

Mr. Wakeham: In that case, I shall not give way.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Secretary of State should save himself some time and give way now.

Mr. Wakeham: In June 1988, the Government and the Governments of the other EC member states reached agreement on the terms of the large combustion plants directive. Under this directive the United Kingdom will reduce the level of airborne sulphur dioxide emitted by existing large combustion plants—such as coal-fired power stations. For the United Kingdom, the objective is a 60 per cent. reduction in our sulphur dioxide emissions, based on 1980 levels, by the year 2003, with intermediate reductions of 20 per cent. by 1993 and 40 per cent. by 1998.
The Government have also undertaken to reduce the United Kingdom's emissions of nitrogen oxides—another pollutant implicated in the formation of acid rain—by 30 per cent. on 1980 levels by 1998.
The essence of the directive is a commitment by member states to reduce their emissions of acid gases. It is not a commitment to any specific form of abatement technique.
The retrofitting of power stations with flue gas desulphurisation equipment is an important means of reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide. Contracts have been placed for the retrofitting of the 4 GW Drax power station. But there are other means, too. For example, greater use of natural gas in power stations would not only reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide, but would help control our emissions of carbon dioxide. That could prove of greater value as part of the strategy to combat global warming.
I assure the House that the privatisation of the electricity industry will not affect United Kindom compliance with the terms of the directive. The Environmental Protection Bill will provide the Secretary of State for the Environment and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution with adequate powers to ensure compliance with the directive.

Mr. Salmond: May I take the Secretary of State back to his argument on the virtues of competition? I read his speech in Aberdeen last Friday. How will the cross-border competition work? In particular, how can we export Scottish electricity generated by coal at 4p per unit or by advanced gas reactor at, perhaps, 8p per unit when there are proposals to build 3,000 MW of gas-powered electricity stations in the north-east of England which will produce electricity at 2p per unit? Is not that a recipe for one-way competition? The competition will not be from north to south. From a Scottish perspective, can the Secretary of State really argue that it is a good deal to allow gas from Aberdeen to be sent to the north-east of England to out-compete the Scottish electricity industry and Scottish industry as a whole?

Mr. Wakeham: I am glad that the whole of Scotland is not as pessimistic about the fortunes of the Scottish economy as the hon. Gentleman. When I was in Scotland, I talked to a number of people involved in the electricity supply industry there, who believe that they can compete—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman quotes a lot of figures. It is not for me to discuss the details of contracts to which I am not party. I am convinced that Scotland has the ability to compete; that Scotland will compete on electricity and be very welcome in our system, in which it will play its part.

Mr. Salmond: What about the price of the AGR system?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question to which, in my view, I have given him the answer.
I always take a lively interest in the pronouncements of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and his colleagues. Both he and his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) have come up with some interesting new policies on the environment recently.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras wants to introduce a new merit order based on environmental friendliness—by which, we must assume, he means nuclear first and coal last. The hon. Member for Dagenham—taking time off from the roof tax—has said that Labour would stabilise carbon dioxide emissions within five years and then embark on a major programme of reductions.
It seems to me that both hon. Members have committed themselves to policies without working out what impact they would have on our economy—and more specifically on the coal industry. The combination of those policies could have a devastating impact on the industry and on the workers in the industry that many Opposition Members represent. Perhaps the hon. Members have not done their homework, or perhaps they should think a little more before committing themselves to such policies, but until they come clean we can only assume one thing—that a Labour Government would be disastrous for the coal industry.

Mr. Dobson: I assume that the Secretary of State is referring to a speech that I made in Wakefield on 21 November. It would have been better if he had told the House that I did not announce the merit order as part of Labour's policy. I said——

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is recanting.

Mr. Dobson: No, I am not recanting at all. I said, "I don't pretend to have all the answers"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—unlike Conservative Members who always have all the answers. I said that I was seeking advice about one idea that which force the generators to take the environment seriously. If the Secretary of State—and, presumably, those who helped him draft his speech and who are now sitting in the Box—had looked carefully at my speech, they would not have seen any suggestion that there should be comparisons between gas, electricity and coal because we are looking at the comparative merits of one gas-fired method against another and of one coal-fired method against another. I hope that the Secretary of State will stop this canard, which he has run out half a dozen times already.

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I am glad that an element of bipartisanship has broken out. We can agree that the hon. Gentleman does not know all the answers. However, more seriously—some important issues are involved—I give the hon. Gentleman this undertaking. If he has any plans about how he would like the merit order to be altered from the point of view of the environment, and if he will send his proposals to me, I will ensure that they are considered by the experts in the Department and I will give the hon. Gentleman a perfectly adequate answer. I mean that seriously. I am happy to cast a slide rule or two over the hon. Gentleman's proposals.

Mr. Home Robertson: When the Secretary of State has the slide rule out, and since his experts are to assess the environmental impact of different types of power, will he take this opportunity to say something about the circumstances in which the offshore wave power programme was rubbished by people in his Department, we assume, back in 1982? Is he prepared to make a further statement now on whether that programme will be started again?

Mr. Wakeham: I came to the Department on 27 July 1990—[Interruption.]—no, 1989, and I have not briefed myself on what happened in 1982. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about it, I shall be happy to look into the matter.
Even before it is accomplished, privatisation has had the effect of stimulating new thinking about methods of electricity generation in this country. The scope and incentives for combined heat and power, for the burning of gas and for renewable energy sources have become much clearer. All these are to be welcomed on environmental grounds. As I said on 12 February, around 300 projects have been put to the area boards in response to our policy of encouraging the development of commercial renewable energy sources.
There has been some ill-founded comment that we have overlooked the interests of independent generators in framing our privatisation proposals. This is not the case. The promotion of competition in generation remains a key objective.
As far as the existing generators are concerned, there are about 100 projects selling to area boards under the terms of the Energy Act 1983. My predecessor announced a year ago that we had agreed five-year transitional arrangements with the area board chairmen to ensure that the changes that we are bringing about do not materially affect the working of those independent power contracts that had been agreed against the backdrop of the Energy Act 1983. The object of the transitional arrangements is to ensure that the generators are no worse off in revenue income terms than at present.
Nevertheless, not all generators currently selling under 1983 Act terms could have been covered by these arrangements, since some 40 of those projects predate the 1983 Act. I have been considering this further and am pleased to say that my proposal is to extend the transitional arrangements to all existing independent generators, regardless of when the plant investment was made.
The successor companies of the area boards will, therefore, make available 1983 Energy Act terms to all existing generators who wish them, for a period of five years after vesting. I believe that that will give all independent generators now on the system an oportunity to come to terms with the new market environment that we are now creating.
As for new entrants, there is a substantial interest among the independent sector in entering the generating market. Lakeland Power and NORWEB, of course, led the way last October with the signature of a long-term power sales contract from the Roosecote station in Cumbria. I am glad to say that this particular project is progressing well. As we speak, the staton is undergoing conversion to burn gas and it is hoped that Lakeland will be supplying power by the winter of 1991.
I hope and believe that more will follow. We know of around 20 other major generation projects in prospect and negotiations between the companies concerned are actively under way. I hope that the emerging final details of the new regime will assist in bringing such negotiations to successful conclusions. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked a great deal about the Government's record and policies——

Mr. Kevin Barron: It says here—he has it typed out.

Mr. Wakeham: Well, I do not think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras can object to me commenting as such, because he said very little about his party's record and policies. Perhaps he is a little embarrassed to talk about them. But if he will not, I shall. I shall set the record straight—and the record is clear. Labour is the party of electricity price rises. The Conservatives are the party of electricity price reductions. Labour in government did nothing to clean up the environment. The Conservatives in government are taking the lead throughout the world in tackling environmental problems. Labour believes the answer to everything is renationalisation. The Conservatives believe in free enterprise——

Mr. Dobson: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about policy, does he recognise that on 13 December 1989 an Environment Minister said in a written answer that meeting the anti-acid rain commitment
will involve a range of measures by United Kingdom industry, including retrofitting at least 12,000 MW of electricity generating capacity with flue gas desulphurisation equipment."—[Official Report, 13 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 717.]
Is that still the Government's policy, or has the Secretary of State just changed it?

Mr. Barron: Let us have a straight answer.

Mr. Wakeham: We shall meet that directive in the most sensible and practical manner. Global warming and carbon dioxide are important factors, and we have given a clear undertaking to meet the directive.
The contrast between the two parties could not be starker. Where Labour failed, this Government have a proud record and sound policies. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to follow the preposterous speech of the Secretary of State. We can only assume that he is looking for an early ministerial reshuffle, as it is obvious that he does not want to be in charge of the electricity industry as it goes towards privatisation.
It is true that energy prices rose in the 1970s following the Yom Kippur war, when fuels costs quadrupled. After 1980, however, the reason for high electricity prices was the industrial devastation that had reduced demand and left the industry with a substantial surplus of generating capacity. That problem should have been resolved, but we now face massive price increases for no good reason.
I was present when the Secretary of State's predecessor came to the House to say that electricity prices had to rise by 15 per cent. in 1988 and by up to 7 per cent. in 1989 to pay for capital investment. Hon. Members who were present then will recall that. We pointed out that the


Central Electricity Generating Board had already budgeted for adequate capital investment without price increases and, during the passage of the Electricity Bill in Committee, we established that electricity prices had gone up for no good reason, as the board's capital expenditure programme had been met from its budgeted sums before those price increases. Those increases have put a heavy burden on domestic and industrial consumers.
In the past two years, the Government have been fortunate, as the winters have been relatively mild. Had that not been so, there would have been a scandalous number of hypothermia cases and similar conditions. What the Secretary of State has said today brings no comfort to the domestic consumer. He has promised that prices will not rise above the level of inflation, but inflation may well reach 8 per cent. this year and any price increase will be a significant burden on those already paying too much for their electricity.
Whatever the Government may say, the share of income devoted to electricity and fuel costs by the poorest 4 million people in our country is already excessive. They cannot afford to buy electricity shares or water shares. The private water companies recently demonstrated what privatisation means. They are now telling the fire authorities that they have no obligation to provide free water for fighting a fire. Before long, the private electricity generators will say that they have no obligation to provide heat and warmth for the poorest of our country.
It is bad enough for the Government to impose hardship upon the poor, but, while maintaining their arm's length relationship with industry, they should remember that they have an obligation to supervise the British economy. On Saturday, I spent the evening talking to employees of the steel industry who are members of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the ISTC. They are anxious not only about their jobs, but about rapid developments that will take place in the months ahead. Their anxiety is shared throughout the steel industry and the chairman of United Engineering Steels, Mr. Pennington, wrote to me recently to express his anxiety. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that anxiety.
The signs are that we are heading for an industrial recession. Between December 1988 and December 1989, steel production fell from 363,000 tonnes to 343,000 tonnes; between November 1988 and November 1989, steel production fell from 360,000 tonnes to 330,000 tonnes. Those falls are significant and serious, as the steel industry is typical of a number of high-technology, high-energy-using industries. Those industries know that, if we enter a tighter, more competitive international market, our competitors will behave with a great deal more intelligence than the Government have displayed since 1979.
As competition increases and tightens, our competitors in France, Germany and elsewhere will recognise that intelligent support from the state and intervention by the Government will be helpful in maintaining their share of international trade. Our Government should remember that, for companies such as Rotherham Engineering Steels Ltd., the price of power may account for more than 20 per cent. of production costs. The Government will not

provide such support, but how will we generate the import revenue to pay for the enormous importation of low-sulphur coal, as envisaged by the Government?
The Government have wiped out the British low-sulphur coal industry, and they intend to rely upon imports. In the 1990s, it is inevitable that the premium enjoyed by that coal will increase. Within the decade, I estimate that it will cost £50 a tonne. Because of the Prime Minister's betrayal of her commitment to serve the cause of decency in the environment, we shall be forced to buy low-sulphur coal from abroad, and that will mean the equivalent of a balance of payments demand of £3,000 million.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hardy: I would rather not, as I promised to make a short speech—perhaps to enable the hon. Gentleman to make his own.
The Prime Minister and her Government have betrayed the commitments to the environment that she gave several times 18 months ago. This most recent betrayal comes as no surprise; we have seen it all before. As a result of the failure of the Government's energy policy, British industry and exporting companies such as Rotherham Engineering Steels Ltd. may face a serious competitive disadvantage. That will affect the national economy and the employment potential that industry should command.
This should not be a matter for party games; what is at stake is too serious. The Government's handling of the energy economy will endanger the well-being of the country, pose a threat to our exporting industries and cause hardship to the poorest sections of our community, who are already suffering a great deal. The Government's failure poses a danger to the health of the nation as they cling to the idea that the leukaemia-friendly nuclear industry is helpful to the environment. The facts are far too serious to allow the Government to continue with their preposterous approach.

Dr. Michael Clark: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) announced his plans for the privatisation of electricity, he made the wise decision to split the generating board in two. He also made the important decision that the distribution companies could generate electricity and that other companies should he able to generate electricity by the use of private capital. One part of that privatisation plan was not how I would have wished, however—that relating to nuclear power.
We could have privatised the electricity industry as a whole, but we excluded the nuclear part and kept it as a separate public company. The third report of the Select Committee on Energy for 1987–88 said in paragraph 147:
independent witnesses were unanimous that, because of commerical discount rates, and the price of coal, unsupported, private companies were most unlikely to build nuclear power plants.
In a speech in this House on 12 December 1988, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who has now left the Chamber, spoke of the wisdom of having a separate publicly owned nuclear company. I said that there was a right and an obligation to buy non-fossil electricity, but asked where the obligation was to build nuclear power stations or generating sets


based on renewable sources. It seemed to be a one-sided relationship, with an obligation to buy but no obligation to build.
At that time—admittedly, I am going back more than 12 months—there were arguments for a separate public company for nuclear power stations, so that the generation of nuclear electricity would he guaranteed. There was also an argument for a separate company to prevent the nuclear component from eroding the selling price of National Power and PowerGen—particularly National Power. There was also an argument that we should retain a centre of nuclear excellence in terms both of operating nuclear power stations and of research and development. There was, and still is, a case to have a separate nuclear company so that there would be public confidence in nuclear energy, especially with regard to safety.
Above all, the main point made in that debate was that it was essential to keep nuclear generation separate from other forms of generation, so as to prevent the true costs of the nuclear industry from being concealed. They were the costs of capital, fuel, waste disposal and decommissioning. It seems that, due to the accoustics and the speed of sound in this Chamber, it takes about 12 months for noises from Back Benches to travel the 10 or 15 ft to the Front Benches.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the bold decision to put nuclear generation into a separate company—Nuclear Electric. The fact that the decision has been taken a little later than one would wish does not change the fact that it was a bold, wise and correct decision, and I congratulate him on it.
I add to the congratulations offered by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the magnificent job that they are doing in completing the privatisation programme in the scheduled time. The vesting date will be 31 March. There is little doubt that my right hon. Friend is the right man for the right job at the right time.

Mr. Dobson: How would the hon. Gentleman describe the Secretary of State's predecessor?

Dr. Clark: I am talking about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whom I congratulate on the work that he is doing at present. He is creating competition that will result in downward pressure on prices. Through competition, he will also encourage upward pressure on standard of service, which will benefit everyone using electricity.
We have heard much this afternoon about acid rain, which is principally caused by burning coal and producing sulphur dioxide. There are other forms of pollution, including that caused by carbon dioxide, which causes the so-called greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide comes from burning not only coal, but all fossil fuels. It seems that, whether we are talking about acid rain or the greenhouse effect, it is either burning fossil fuel or, more specifically in terms of acid rain, burning coal, that is the problem. The difference between the two is that we can scrub out sulphur dioxide and prevent acid rain, as has been said, but we cannot do much now, if anything, to remove carbon dioxide, which causes the greenhouse effect. The only way we can do so is to think of other forms of electricity generation, whether renewables or nuclear.
There is a principle—it is presently being embodied in legislation—that the polluter pays. With the privatisation of electricity, I am certain that that principle will continue. The price of electricity must reflect the price of removing such things as sulphur dioxide and preventing acid rain. If we were not careful and did not have privatisation, we would be in a cost-plus position, where the cost of the measures would be passed straight to the consumer by the generator. With privatisation and the competition that will ensue, the cost of removing pollution will be kept to a minimum and will result in a downward trend, not an ever-spiralling upward one.
In the long term, there is little doubt that the nuclear programme and renewables are the solution to removing acid rain. However, we must concede—our Select Committee report showed this—that it is unlikely that the nuclear industry can make much of a contribution during the next 10 or 20 years. Therefore, we should perhaps look towards renewables.
In his statement on 12 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy commented on the fact that the non-fossil fuel obligation would also encourage the development of commercial renewable energy sources. He reminded us this afternoon that about 300 projects have been proposed to the area boards in response to that policy. We await with considerable interest the second order, that he will introduce, which relates specifically to renewables. We look forward to learning about the success of many of those 300 projects.
Let us also hope that some of the money that is now being saved from nuclear research and development can be directed towards renewables. A little pump priming—if I may be excused the pun—in the renewable direction will have a great deal of benefit. Nuclear research is expensive, and it would not require more than a small percentage of that money to be diverted to renewables to have a significant impact on the number of renewable sources, their viability and their commercial success.
I still believe that, in the long term, the nuclear industry gives us the best options for constant availability of energy. In due course, as fossil fuels rise in price due to their scarcity, nuclear electricity will have advantageous prices and will be pollution-free.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, he knows full well that, while we have been taking expert evidence on this subject recently, no one has been able to give the exact cost of nuclear energy in the future, including decommissioning.

Dr. Clark: I grant that it is difficult to know what the cost of nuclear energy will be in future. However, it is also difficult to know what coal, gas, or oil will cost. One fact we do know is that coal, gas and oil are declining in world reserves, whereas the amount of uranium is largely untouched. Basic cost graphs will show that the cost of fossil fuel will increase as it becomes scarce, and the cost of nuclear energy will either remain stable or decrease as technology improves. We know that there is plenty of uranium to fuel the stations.
When the nuclear industry recovers from its temporary setback and starts rebuilding stations, I am certain that they will be in the private sector, as they are in America.


There is no reason why they should not be in the private sector here in due course, although it is not appropriate at present, for the reasons that I gave earlier.
I am disappointed that the review of the nuclear industry has been delayed until 1994. That will probably mean that there can be no new nuclear power stations before then. I wonder what will happen to fill the gap left by the cancellation of the three pressurised water reactors that are no longer to be built.
The work on finding sites for nuclear waste must continue regardless of the nuclear review. We have to be sure that we have the advanced technology for disposing of nuclear waste by 1994, when there will be another boost in the build of nuclear power stations. The nuclear industry will then be able to keep prices down, without the pollution which results from the burning of fossil fuels.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. If hon. Members limit their speeches to 10 minutes, all those who wish to speak will be able to do so.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is amazing to hear the complacent way in which the Government defend the privatisation of the electricity industry, given the shambolic way in which it has been conducted over the past year or two. The Government have turned cartwheels; advice from Opposition Members and others outside the House, once treated with contempt and rubbished, has proved to be correct and has ultimately been accepted, but only after confidence in the Government's handling of the matter has been shattered. But that only came about because the City was not prepared to buy the package that was originally proposed. I agree with the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) that, in the circumstances, the Secretary of State has made the best of a bad job, but I am sure that he and his predecessor are not the closest of friends as a result.
I am not convinced that the electricity industry has been privatised with the interests of the consumer in mind, with the objective of keeping down electricity prices or with the objective of dealing with the environmental problems associated with electricity generation. It has been done with the voter in mind, as a means to buy votes. However, the Government's economic policies are now in such a mess that it is difficult to see how they can issue such a bribe without aggravating the problems that they have created.
The nuclear power industry has proved most embarrassing to the Government. We were first told that nuclear power was the cheapest form of electricity, even though for years it has been apparent to anybody who looked at it closely that that was not the case, and that it was expensive. At least privatisation flushed that fact out so effectively that the Government were forced to pull it from the sale, as I and others warned at the outset they would have to do, because it would not be a saleable proposition.
Not only is the nuclear industry uneconomic, but it cannot be claimed to have all the benefits that the hon. Member for Rochford described. Safety problems occur far too frequently for us to be complacent about existing

nuclear power stations. Only last week there was an incident at Hinkley Point. The industry maintains that there was no significant problem, but it was only a matter of luck that there were no serious consequences. The incident was certainly outside the budgeted safety provisions. In other words, it should not have happened. In addition, there are the problems of leukaemia clusters and the genetic transfer of leukaemia at Sellafield.
That raises serious questions about whether the THORP project is the money spinner that the Government suggest. At the end of the day, that will prove to be a major cost and environmental liability. The project should never have been embarked upon. The idea that it will win us large quantities of foreign exchange in the short term is likely to be outweighed by the difficulties of maintaining the safety of that plant and dealing with the large volumes of radioactive waste that will be produced as a by-product.
The nuclear industry has no useful contribution to make in the foreseeable future, and it should be phased out during the next 15 to 20 years. That will require a radical reassessment of what our electricity supply industry should look like in 15, 20 or 25 years' time.
I agree with the Secretary of State that the Labour party's motion is a little cheeky. It is certainly bald, and it says little if anything about the Labour party's alternative. It is extremely negative in its approach. One of the Labour party's problems is that, fundamentally, it likes the electricity supply industry the way it was—a huge, centralised monolithic structure.

Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: No, I am trying to be brief.
To make the point more forcefully, during the Lib-Lab agreement, the Labour Government's objective was a single electricity company for the United Kingdom. It was one of the small negative benefits of that period that the Liberals in government refused to accede to that objective, and we were right to ensure that the regional structure was maintained. It is necessary to ensure that the industry has some transparency and comparability.
There is room for competition within the supply industry. That has never been a problem for me or for my party, but I am not convinced that the structure that has been created is likely to be the definitive answer. Restructuring will inevitably take place over the years. I am not wholly convinced that there will be a proliferation of new small suppliers, but that is the direction in which the electricity supply industry should move in the next few years, so that we have much greater variety, scale and size of generation.
Another mistake in the way in which the industry has been structured and has instinctively operated over the past 10 or 15 years is that, when demand has risen, the response has been to build a series of new giant power stations. That era should be behind us. That is one of the better reasons why the PWRs should be cancelled: not just because they are nuclear stations but because they are of a scale and type that is not relevant to the future structure of the industry.
We want smaller-scale generating capacity, which can be much more efficient because it can use combined heat and power systems and district heating systems and in other ways operate at a level of efficiency which will reduce environmental pressures as well as fuel requirements.
Environmental pressures must be addressed from the outset. The Government should be setting targets not only for the reduction of acid rain but for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. That can be done only if one sets out the objectives for three to five years ahead and then works out how they can be achieved. The Minister says that the Government aim to achieve a 60 per cent. reduction in acid rain by 2003. The EC wishes to achieve that by 1995, so the Government are clearly not moving as fast as they should be.
The practicalities of reducing carbon dioxide emissions are not too acute in the short term. I had the privilege and pleasure of opening a sheltered housing complex in my constituency last week. It was built by Gordon district council and is claimed to be the most energy-efficient housing complex in operation in the United Kingdom. For £30,000, a substantial reduction in heating costs has been achieved. The project cost £1·44 million and the 32 units cost £1 per week for all heat and light, using condensing boilers, triple glazing, high insulation and low-energy lighting.
It is also estimated that carbon dioxide emissions from that building have been reduced by 50 per cent., compared to what would have been the case if that £30,000 investment had not been made. Building standards and an energy audit for the introduction of such new systems in a variety of buildings could quickly reduce fuel consumption and carbon dioxide output. Radical measures of that kind are needed if the environmental pressures created by the electricity supply industry are to be reduced.
The Government told the United Nations that they believed that it was possible to reduce the demand for electricity by 60 per cent. within the next few years—that is, a 60 per cent. increase in efficiency. However, in written answers that I have received even in the last few weeks, the Government insist that they believe only a 20 per cent., saving is achievable. How do the Government explain that differential? What is being done to achieve even a 20 per cent. saving?
One must ask also what is being done about renewable sources of energy. After conservation has been exploited—that must be the priority—alternative energy resources must be dramatically expanded. Scotland has the best wind profile in Europe, yet that resource is not being developed at anything like the rate necessary. In fact, one company involved dropped out of the market because the pace of development did not allow it to survive.
We should be setting ourselves the clear objectives of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent. over the next 15 years, introducing a system of emission control licences to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and of other greenhouse gases released by energy generation, developing renewable energy resources on a much greater scale, and changing the nature of the coal industry to ensure that we do not continue losing low-sulphur reserves, as we have done over the past year or two. We should also phase out the nuclear power industry by 2020, if not before.
All that is achievable and would bring the substantial benefits of savings to the consumer, reductions in electricity costs, reductions in fuel poverty, and reductions in the impact of the adverse effects of electricity generation on the environment.

Mr. John Hannam: I welcome the privatisation of the electricity supply industry and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the effective grasp of the reorganisation that he has shown. In 1979, I and the late Jocelyn Cadbury, both working in the energy group, first drew up a report suggesting splitting the electricity industry into eight coterminous generating and distribution companies, as the first step to achieving a competitive situation. At that time, many technical objections were made, which outweighed the advantages. A decade later, the dream that I and the late Jocelyn Cadbury had or a more flexible and more competitive system is coming to fruition.
We are about to embark on a new era in electricity generation now that the old Central Electricity Generating Board monopoly is to be broken. With the emergence of two new private companies, National Power and PowerGen, together with the newly emerging independent generating companies such as Lakeland Power Ltd.—which has reached agreement to sell the output of its 225 MW power station in Cumbria to NORWEB—we can see all the pressures of competition being brought to bear on prices. I am confident that, within a few years, all the exaggerated fears of the Labour party that electricity prices will rise by 25 per cent. will be proved groundless—just as they were in the case of other major privatisations.
The Government can be proud of the success of their privatisation programme. Twenty-nine major former state sector companies have been privatised since 1980. Almost 45 per cent. of the former state sector and nearly 800,000 jobs are in private hands and are prospering accordingly. That has resulted in a trebling in the number of United Kingdom shareholders to more than 9 million. Ninety-nine per cent. of British Gas employees bought shares, and it would be a salutary lesson for Labour to poll all those employees, asking whether they really want to go backwards and see the renationalisation of the gas industry. Domestic gas prices fell by 16 per cent. in real terms in the five years from 1984 to 1989, and British Telecom charges have fallen by 5 per cent. in real terms since November 1986.
The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week that average electricity prices will increase below inflation is good news for everyone. It means, of course, that once again, Labour has got it all wrong, with its scaremongering forecasts of huge price increases.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Hannam: Because of the time limitation, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman—but I can prove if necessary that such a forecast was made by two Labour Members.
History has shown that there were massive price increases under Labour Governments. Between May 1974 and May 1979, domestic electricity prices increased 9 per cent. in real terms, compared with an 8 per cent. fall between 1985 and the present under a Conservative Government. Under Labour, industrial electricity prices rose 6 per cent. in real terms, but have dropped 10 per cent.. under a Conservative Government. As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said:


The last Labour Government, of which I was a member—I take my share of collective responsibility for this—caused a massive increase in electricity charges."—[Official Report, 13 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 813.]
I have no doubt that the diversity of supply that the Electricity Act promises will materialise.

Mr. George J. Buckley: rose——

Mr. Hannam: In view of the comments of Mr. Deputy Speaker, who asked right hon. and hon. Members to curtail their speeches, I think that I had better carry on.
I mentioned Lakeland Power's 225 MW station, and there is also the ICI-National Power-Enron proposal for a £1 billion gas-fired power station using combined heat and power, which would generate 1,500 MW. Thames Power has plans for a series of five or six generating plants, including a huge 1,000 MW station at Barking, which would supply nearly one quarter of London electricity board's peak demand. South-Eastern electricity board, London Underground Ltd., British Coal and Whitchurch hospital in Cardiff all have schemes that would produce downward pressure on prices and much greater efficiency in energy production.
By seeking out the cheapest source of supply, the 12 area supply companies will promote competition among the generators, with the national grid acting as the market. They will be able to generate electricity themselves or to purchase it from new independent generators. The requirement to purchase a percentage of their needs from non-fossil fuel sources will help to ensure security of supply and encourage the development of renewable sources of power. I wish that the non-fossil fuel percentage could somehow have been extended to include combined heat and power, which must be more greatly encouraged as one of the most energy-efficient means of generating and using electricity.
I support the decision to separate the nuclear power element of the industry at this stage. It is vital to keep nuclear capacity, not only for security of supply but on environmental grounds and a longer-term supply basis. Within a few years, fossil fuel prices will without a doubt begin to rise again and nuclear power will become price-competitive in the United Kingdom—as it is in France, Japan and West Germany. Alternative renewable resources of non-fossil fuel generation will also play an increasingly important part in our energy equation.
The Government are right to help research into, and evaluation of, various forms of electricity generation. Although I should not like to put my money on any particular schemes at this stage, because we have seen their order of priority chop and change over the years, I believe that the Mersey tidal barrage will succeed, as will wind farms on our windier islands. I note the remark of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), that Scotland presents special opportunities in that context. The landfill gas schemes that are proliferating are also likely to succeed.
The impending privatisation of the electricity industry has given a huge boost to the development of such projects—so much so that 300 schemes have been submitted to area boards for consideration under the non-fossil fuel obligation. Important to us all is the effect of energy production and use upon our environment. A great deal more has to be done in respect of cleaner production and energy efficiency. As I pointed out in an earlier

intervention, a process that removes a pollutant such as sulphur dioxide or the lead from petrol can increase the amount of carbon-dioxide going into the atmosphere. That problem will not go away, as has been made clear in all our discussions with environmental organisations.
We need imaginative new initiatives throughout the whole area of energy efficiency, if we are to properly protect our environment, as the hon. Member for Gordon said. All the present evaluations show that the best opportunities for environmental benefit probably lie with transport, through increasing car engine efficiency and through new attitudes to travel systems.
In recent discussions with Friends of the Earth, it was pointed out that our present policy of creating industrial estates and new factories far away from the houses in which the employees live creates huge transport problems. It results in vast commuter traffic and use of cars. As many of the new industrial plants are quiet and clean and use new technology, perhaps our planners ought to consider whether we should go back to integrating some of the plants and industries with the housing for the people who will work in them, and so help to produce an answer to one of our environmental problems.
We now spend six times the amount that we spent in 1979 on energy efficiency. The Electricity Act places a duty on the Secretary of State and on the Director General of Electricity Supply to promote energy efficiency and economy by suppliers, and to promote the efficient use of the electricity which they supply.
However, the energy efficiency of British buildings is not satisfactory compared with that in other European countries. The programme of energy saving in the early 1980s produced a significant upturn in the awareness of the importance of energy efficiency among industrialists, business men and domestic householders. Now is the time to regenerate—if I may be allowed to use that phrase—full awareness of energy saving and the benefits to the consumer and for future generations. Energy audits, insulation, double-glazing, building design and electronic controls—those are a whole range of actions and options that need to be encouraged, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will pursue them vigorously together with Ministers in other Departments.
The Opposition motion has effectively been torpedoed by my right hon. Friend's announcement of a lower-than-inflation price structure. I ask the House to support the Government amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the fact that the Government are buying advice from 47 companies. If the Government were sincere in their beliefs about the work and the worth of the Energy Select Committee and other Select Committees, there would have been no need for them to spend that sort of money.
I thought that I saw four members of the Select Committee here today. That pleased me, although I think that the Chairman has now left the Chamber, as has the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost). All four were party to the Energy Select Committee's third report of 6 July 1988. I may be wrong about the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), but I think they all were a party to it.
The Government never wanted that report to be published. Hon. Members may recollect that, on one particular morning, the Select Committee was to discuss the possibility of taking evidence and producing such a report, and because of pressure from the Whips, Conservative Members were supposed to object to such an investigation. Unfortunately, for some reason, some Conservative Members failed to turn up to the Committee, and the Opposition Members—we do not usually split on political lines—were then in the majority. That is why that report saw the light of day.
That was an excellent report, in which the Committee advised the Government—who were hell-bent on shoving forward their privatisation programme, and had produced a White Paper with very little consultation on electricity privatization—that they were in danger of producing spatchcock legislation [Interruption.] The Committee suggested that the Government might be well advised to defer the implementaton of the legislation until they had had sufficient time to consider it.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East wanted to know what spatchcock legislation means. I am prepared for that one. I have been asked that question many times, and I have failed to answer it, but now I have found the answer. I understand that a spatchcock is a cock bird, a bird unplucked or unhung, and not ready for cooking. I think that that explains the word, and the motives behind the Select Committee's decision. The Committee saw the dangers of that hasty legislation.
I believe that the Select Committee has been proved right. They produced a report after seeking much expert evidence. I would have thought that the Government would have been wise to consider that report, but no, they did not. The Select Committee said in its third report;
First, we are worried about the costs of nuclear power … Secondly, if there are to be additional costs from nuclear power, we are concerned about where they will fall.
In recent times, as the present Chairman knows well, we have taken much expert evidence in Committee on the cost of nuclear power. Why did the electricity supply industry and Lord Marshall get their sums wrong? Why has the country been told for many years that the comparison of costs between coal and nuclear showed that nuclear was always much cheaper? That was never true; it was probably hidden from the public and from the Government—in fairness to them.

Mr. Dobson: For a time.

Mr. Lofthouse: Yes, for a time. But it was certainly hidden from the country.
The Secretary of State has not altered one word in his speech about the nuclear sector, part of which will be generating electricity in Britain. The big question mark over electricity prices is, how much will it cost, bearing in mind the proportion of 25 per cent. generation by non-fossil fuel? We are aware that there will be a colossal cost, and no one knows the real cost of decommissioning. Somewhere down the line someone will have to foot that bill, but who? It will not be the private sector. Nuclear power generation has been pulled out of the sale because it would not be attractive to the private sector. I appreciate that there have to be alternative sources of energy, but I do not believe that effort and money should be put into the nuclear industry.
When we talk about costs, we immediately think of financial costs, but of leukaemia clusters and other things

there are greater costs. Evidence is now coming to light in some areas of nuclear activity. Nobody knows the extent of the problem. It has been denied for many years, but now people are beginning to wonder. What a cost we may have to be prepared to pay for the nuclear generation of electricity. What a social cost, and what misery we may cause families.
There is also a risk of major accidents. I believe that the reason for pushing nuclear energy as an alternative supply is purely dogma. It is to whip the miners, who have never been forgiven and never will be while the Government are in power. The Government will live to regret the day that they ran down the coal-mining industry to the extent they have. Once mining cannot meet the demands of the next generation of industry in this country, we shall have to pay through the nose for coal—whether it is desulphurised or not. That is purely a result of dogma. I hope that the Government will think again, and will do what they can to provide some nuclear power costing.
No less a person than Lord Marshall, on whose guidance the Government have relied for many years, told the Select Committee only last week or the week before that he agreed with the view in its report that the Government had produced spatchcock legislation, and Conservative Members know full well that that view is correct. He also said—in his final question to the Committee's Chairman, I believe—that, after 25 years of advising Government, he had failed. I believe that he is now a very disillusioned nuclear scientist, as are many of his friends.
If costing is to be fair and properly controlled, there can be no place for nuclear power generation.

6 pm

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I should have thought that it was obvious that, on an Opposition day, the Opposition—in this case, the Labour party—should choose a subject on which they had a good record when in office, and on which their spokespersons were renowned for the accuracy of both their research and their pronouncements. Labour's record on both electricity prices and care for the environment is woefully arid pathetically weak. Far from being a shining beacon of achievement and endeavour, it is hardly measurable in megawatts. Candle power would be more appropriate: even in that context, however, it is short on the light of inspiration and long on the wax of fudge and obfuscation.
Let us look first at Labour's record on prices. Between 1974 ad 1979, domestic electricity prices rose by 9 per cent. in real terms. Under the present Government, between 1985 and 1990, they fell by 8 per cent. in real terms. Opposition Members may not like the figures, but they represent the truth. Under Labour, industrial prices rose by 6 per cent. in real terms; they have fallen by 10 per cent. under the present Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was 10 years ago."]
I hear Opposition Members protest that their record was established 10 years ago. Has anything changed? Have they learnt anything? Is their understanding of the electricity supply industry any more intelligible, and are their predictions any more accurate?
In December 1988, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) forecast a 25 per cent. rise in electricity bills as a result of privatisation. Misleadingly, he lumped together the 1988 rise, the forecast rise for 1989 and the fossil fuel


levy, which was already an integral part of electricity bills. Earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State announced that this year the average price for all consumers would increase only in line with inflation. The hon. Member for Sedgefield was some 17 percentage points out: I wonder whether that is why he has moved to employment. As recently as last September, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said that industrial customers faced rises of between 15 and 25 per cent. in April, but it was announced today that the Government had obtained an undertaking from the industry to offer a real-terms price freeze, at least to the larger industrial users.
Under privatisation, downward pressures will be exerted on prices as a result of competition between generators. Prices will also be strongly regulated through the control of transmission and distribution pass-on costs and the firm and rigid implementation of the pricing formula, RPI minus X plus Y. The fossil fuel levy—which has just been set at 10·6 per cent. of the final sales to be borne by all customers—does not represent an additional cost, because the nuclear costs are already included in electricity bills. As recently as November last year, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) predicted that the levy was likely to be about 15 per cent.
Privatisation has brought about an entirely new competitive structure for the industry. At over 10 MW, customers will be entitled to contract supply; at under 10 MW, they will be entitled to a tariff supply from the public electricity suppliers. At over 1 MW, customers are free to obtain supplies from any supplier, and from March 1994 those at over 100 KW will have that option. In March 1998, all customers will be free to seek alternative supplies. That will achieve a well-ordered phasing in of total competition, stabilising the market. PowerGen will testify to the fact that the present position is uniquely competitive.
Labour's energy policy is entirely irresponsible. If Labour had its way, electricity supplies would depend entirely on the coal industry, and we would be in hock to the National Union of Mineworkers. Not only do Labour Members ignore the need for security and diversity of supply; they have shot themselves in the foot in the second part of the motion, which refers to the environment. I note that the motion, rather than dealing with the environment as a whole—as did the original version—confines itself to acid rain. Where is Labour's consideration of the problems of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect?
Any future Labour Government who failed to protect the country from the whims of the NUM or the OPEC cartel would be guilty not of selling off the family silver, but of giving it away under duress. Where is Labour's consistency? When in office, the party backed nuclear power. Labour Members were responsible for the disastrous AGR programme; they started the PWR programme, and now they cannot ditch it fast enough. With what would they replace it? Why, with carbondioxide-producing coal-fired power stations, of course.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that between 60 and 65 per cent. of the greenhouse gases are produced through energy use, and that half the global warming effect is produced by carbon dioxide. In this country, 80 per cent. of carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal.

About 36 per cent. of our carbon dioxide emissions is caused by electricity generation, and another 11·6 per cent. by solid fuel.
Labour's plan to replace nuclear power with fossil fuel would increase carbon dioxide output by about 53 million tonnes per annum—25 per cent. above the current levels. What hope is there of reaching the Toronto target of a 20 per cent. reduction by the year 2005? Each PWR saves 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. Surely it is somewhat premature, and a little irresponsible, to rule out entirely the future of PWRs in this country and in the wider European dimension?

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Moss: I must press on: other hon. Members wish to speak.
The most significant change in the electricity supply industry is the Government's non-fossil fuel obligation. In 1990–98, 8,000 MW of nuclear power is to be contracted under the levy. Renewables have also been given a major boost: some 300 new projects have been submitted to the area boards, including one in the Wash, near my constituency—an offshore wind generating farm.
The response from the renewables, and from industries seeking to build renewable generating capacity, has been so overwhelming that the Government intend to give the area boards two more months in which to negotiate with prospective operators before laying a second non-fossil fuel obligation order relating specifically to renewables. Only under privatisation has the importance of renewables come to the fore: it has been the key to unlock their potential.
I cannot allow the debate to end without some reference to energy efficiency. The Government's proposals in the Electricity Act break new ground. The Act places a duty on the Secretary of State and the Director General of Electricity Supply to promote energy efficiency on the part of suppliers, and also efficient use of the electricity that they supply.
Spending on energy efficiency is now six times as large as it was some 10 years ago. Since 1983, the Energy Efficiency Office has helped to achieve annual energy savings worth over £500 million. There has been a dramatic improvement in the United Kingdom's energy ratio. Consumption of electricity has remained unchanged since 1979, but in the meantime the gross domestic product has risen by over 20 per cent.
The Labour party is committed to renationalising the electricity supply industry. Not a word, however, has so far been said about how it intends to do that. Will it have a CEGB mark 2, with all its attendant cost-plus accounting procedures, with a bulk supply tariff imposed from above by the monopoly supplier, and no questions asked? Will the Labour party buy back the shares of millions of investors? If so, what price will it pay for the shares? It is the same old package of political interference, customer irrelevance and large subsidies from the taxpayer.
Nothing positive has been said by the Opposition in the debate. They have given no details of what they plan to do. They have offered nothing new or beneficial regarding electricity prices. They have offered nothing that is either viable or workable that would help to improve the environment. As we have come to know, they never did and they never will.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: As the debate progresses, we can see that nothing but lies, damned lies, are provided as information by Conservative party headquarters. I was surprised when the Secretary of State referred to the Opposition's barefaced effrontery, yet he ignored entirely what happened between 1974 and 1979. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) drew his attention to the political and economic climate at that time. Oil cost $40 a barrel. Its price increased three times, just like that. The country had to pay over £5 billion across the exchanges for oil. No previous Government enjoyed the bounty that this Government have enjoyed of £70 billion to £80 billion in North sea oil revenues. However, the Secretary of State had the barefaced effrontery to compare the economic climate then with the one that we have now.
What worries me even more about the Secretary of State's speech is that it seems that there is to be no energy policy, either for price or for production. I referred to the problems surrounding energy costs across the exchanges. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the fact that the Government's energy policy would lead to the contraction of the coal industry, thus committing the nation to a £3 billion deficit across the exchanges. The Opposition believe that such a policy is illogical.
The Secretary of State does not appear to understand the political consequences of the Government's pricing and energy production policy. He said that there would be a further massive contraction of the coal industry: that pits which produce low-sulphur coal will inevitably have to close. It would be economic lunacy to adopt an energy policy that led to the loss of our indigenous supply.
Scotland well illustrates the lunacy of the Government's energy policy. A few weeks ago I was asked to meet local authorities and British Coal to discuss the serious position in Scotland, where the coal industry has been decimated. In a political sense, the Conservative party in Scotland will not thank the Secretary of State for Energy. Its standing in the opinion polls in Scotland is about 16 per cent. If his policies are pursued, the consequences for the Conservative party in Scotland will be dire.
At that meeting, we discussed Longannet colliery and two other pits that are mothballed. The Frances pit is mothballed, although it produces 45 million tonnes of the best coal in Europe, since its sulphur content is very low. The other pit that is mothballed is Monkton hall, which is in my constituency. It will remain mothballed for two years, according to the agreement that was reached. However, I have little confidence, after the Secretary of State for Energy's speech, that the pit will be reopened after two years. He referred to the conversion of coal-fired power stations to gas. How much that will cost I do not know, but the Secretary of State said that when he was in Scotland he was impressed by the fact that all those to whom he spoke in the electricity industry were optimistic about the future.
Scotland has three power stations with a capacity of 13,500 MW, of which 3,500 MW is produced by coal. Scotland produces 90 per cent. more energy than it needs. We require an outlet for that capacity. The Secretary of State for Energy did not provide us with much hope. Ministers told us that they intended to strengthen the interconnector so that some of the additional capacity

could be exported. That capacity—13,500 MW—has already been paid for. It is already available. The interconnector could take the output of between 1·5 million and 2 million tonnes of coal, but nothing is going through the interconnector. Scottish industry is locked into legal battles in the courts.
The question is whether the South of Scotland electricity board should take more coal-fired energy. The people at Longannet are worried about what is to happen; so are the people at Monkton hall and Frances. Ministers have said that the intention is to strengthen the interconnector, but that would cost about £80 million and take three or four years.
I am glad that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, is sitting on the Treasury Bench, since he waxed eloquent over the fact that all that needs to be done is to strengthen the interconnector. However, even though I met the local authorities and the Coal Board, the reality is that nothing is being done about the interconnector. Having listened to the Secretary of State for Energy, I have very little confidence that anything will happen.
I believe that the Government have decided further to contract the coal industry. If they have decided not to go ahead with low-sulphur coal at Monktonhall, not to get an agreement at Longannet, not to strengthen the interconnector, which can export 1·5 million to 2 million tonnes of coal output, I am afraid not only for the miners, but for the Conservative party in Scotland. I hope that the Government will take to heart what I have said because it has political consequences for them.

Dr. Kim Howells: I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Secretary of State for Energy has blown some of his circuits as he has discovered the anomalies in the privatisation machine which his predecessor, the current Secretary of State for Transport, left him. One major anomaly is the big fix, which means that he attempted to get rid of a great monopoly generator and supplier of electricity and replaced it with a duopoly, the two companies of which have been allowed to carve up the most lucrative markets.
It is a tribute to the present Secretary of State's political nous that he recognised that the big fix was likely to crank up electricity prices and wind down public support for the Government. He has opened up the supply sector to a wider range of generators, and I welcome that, although the range is still far too restricted, and planned additional generators are still too thin on the ground.
I should like to quote Doug Rodger, a representative of the Chemical Industries Association. I am sure that the Minister will know that that organisation represents. intensive users of electricity. He said that large industrial consumers would be much happier with a longer transitional period than is currently being offered on pricing. They are not convinced that new generators will be entering the market to provide the promised competition.
Mr. Rodger expressed the hope that the new mechanism would be open to scope and flexibility when all the details became clear. Government sources, however, indicate that licence prices and the operation of the price


control formula are likely to be reviewed as late as 1995, which they believe is too late for heavy industrial customers if the terms prove inflexible before then.
How would it be possible to assure people such as Doug Rodger that they will not be priced out of an increasingly competitive market after 1992? Not by searching the world for parcels of relatively cheap low-sulphur coal. Low-sulphur coal is rapidly becoming a premium fuel, with premium prices attached, and major customers such as the United States, Germany, Denmark and Britain are seeking increasing amounts of the stuff. Nor will prices be reduced by relying on increased imports of French nuclear-generated electricity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said.
Apparently, the electricity which comes to Britain via the cross-Channel interconnector has been the target of a number of our newly privatised area distribution boards. I was informed yesterday by a very distinguished and authoritative source that Electricite de France has lately received a number of distinguished British visitors. A delegation from one of our southern English area electricity boards visited Paris. I am told that they enjoyed a marvellous lunch in the Eiffel tower and they asked Electricité de France whether they could purchase some of its surplus electricity. "Of course," said EDF—I shall not put on my Clouseau accent—"How much are you prepared to offer us for it?" The delegation replied, "We will offer you what the CEGB offered you for it." There was a French shrug, they smiled and said, "We will think about it."
A week or so later, a delegation from another southern English area electricity board arrived, who again enjoyed a splendid lunch up there in the Eiffel tower and afterwards asked EDF, "Would it be possible for us to purchase some of your marvellous, cheap electricity?" "Certainly," said EDF, "But how much are you prepared to offer us for it? We have already had one offer from a neighbouring area electricity board." The delegation replied, "We will offer you 10 per cent. more than they offered." No doubt Electricité de France ordered another glass of Medoc and said, "We shall think about it. We have some other visitors arriving."
The following week, a delegation for another electricity board—I shall not be too specific; I am aware that I have a mortgage to pay—arrived in Paris, enjoyed another marvellous lunch in the Eiffel Tower and said, "We should like to buy some of your electricity." "Certainly," said EDF, "How much are you prepared to offer us?" "We will offer you 10 per cent. more than that outfit from southern England offered you," was the reply. That is no way to secure cheap supplies of electricity to guarantee the future of British industry.

Mr. Eadie: They will get it as long as there is not a drought.

Dr. Howells: Exactly.
My very bitter but distinguished source informed me that it was fine to buy French electricity, as long as the CEGB remained a monopoly purchaser. He said, "We could screw them rotten," as far as the price was concerned. But we no longer have such a monopoly. We will find it increasingly difficult as a nation—borrowing my distinguished source's phrase—to screw any nation or

transnational corporation that possesses the fuel that we decide we need. That includes Colombian coal, South African coal, middle eastern oil and French nuclear-generated electricity. We will have to pay the going rate for any electricity we purchase in future and for any other fuel that we may need to generate electricity.
I do not believe that we should reduce ourselves to a nation that travels around the garage forecourts of the world looking for cheap bags of coal or cheap cans of oil in the hope that we will be able to muddle through, as we have so often in so many crucial and strategic sectors. We have to make the most of our abundant natural resources. We have had it easy until now. I am not defending the strategies of the past, whether they have been implemented by Labour or Conservative Governments.
We have had disastrous fuel policies in the past and we have landed ourselves with a dirty, stinking, unimaginative generating industry which was frequently determined by monopoly characteristics and not by the needs of consumers and which favoured the building of huge power stations and corporations to supply those power stations—whether it was undemocratic British Coal or secretive British Petroleum. We need a complete and imaginative review of the way in which we generate electricity in Britain. We should not begin that review by making our nation a hostage to fortune.

Mr. Peter Rost: I am anxious, in the brief time available to me, to explain that, as a student of energy policy for 20 years—I readily declare my interest as an energy consultant—I have seldom heard so much inconsistency and hypocrisy from the Opposition Front Bench. Labour Back Benchers have been somewhat less inconsistent.
All the energy policies that Opposition Members have been advocating for the last 20 years are now happening as a result of electricity privatisation, yet they do not have the courage to admit it. All that they have been campaigning for—greater energy efficiency, a chance for renewable energy to come into play, greater environmental control, combined heat and power, less pollution and greater competition in affecting prices, enabling industry to shop around—is happening as a result of privatisation, yet they oppose it.
Opposition Members have mostly been opposed to the nuclear industry. The electricity privatisation proposals have, for the first time, exposed the real cost of nuclear, an aspect which Opposition Members have been raising for many years. They, and some of us, have been campaigning on behalf of new coal technologies—fluidised bed technology and so on—which the CEGB continually refuse to consider.
All that is now happening because of electricity privatisation, yet Opposition Members are opposed to it. I have never heard so much inconsistency and hypocrisy as I have heard from Opposition spokesmen today, yet everything they want is happening.

Mr. Dobson: Where is it happening?

Mr Rost: All the policies that Opposition Members have been advocating over the years are now coming to fruition as a result of the Government's proposals to privatise electricity, yet they are still opposed to privatisation. I wish that the occupants of the Opposition


Front Bench would have the guts to say why they are opposed to electricity privatisation, when they must know that we are at last beginning to realise all the objectives of energy policy for which they, and many of my hon. Friends, have been campaigning over the years.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I recall the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) arguing in the House not long ago about the need for a combined heat and power policy. He wanted it written, as a policy, into the Electricity Act 1989. He knows, as vice-president of the Combined Heat and Power Association, that those attempts failed both here and in the other place. How can he say that electricity privatisation is providing a helping hand to the nation, in view of his previous utterances about combined heat and power?
The House should be grateful to the Opposition for providing this opportunity to discuss the position of the electricity supply industry. I regret that the Secretary of State is not in his place, because I want to congratulate the Government on their sense of humour in writing into their amendment the way in which, in their view, we should recognise
the significant progress made by this Government in preparing the electricity supply industry for privatisation".
It is clear from what we have heard—perhaps I should say, from what we have not heard—from the Secretary of State today that we are witnessing another chapter in the shambles of the saga of privatisation that has continued for the last 12 months.
The first element of shambles was the removal of the magnox stations from the flotation. On 27 September last year, the Secretary of State said in a radio interview that the Government believed that the AGRs and PWRs should be part of National Power. It was not long before he changed his mind and removed them from the sell-off.
There then followed a series of changes that will prevent, rather than encourage, competition. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) talked about competition, but accepted that we would have to wait until 1998 before that competition was introduced. That represents a considerable time scale in the energy industry, and in electricity in particular.
In addition to the eight-year protection period for distribution companies, we had the introduction of the price mechanism. In Committee on the Electricity Bill, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) spoke about the poor pricing system, and said that it would resemble bidding on the stock exchange for electricity. We fear that the sort of competition that Conservative Members speak of in relation to electricity cannot exist.
There followed the moratorium on direct contracts and the continuation of cross-subsidisation. All that has not been sorted out from the point of view of heavy industry. Many other matters remain to be settled, despite the statements in December 1987 about the way in which the Government would privatise the electricity supply industry and introduce competition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) spoke eloquently about electricity prices. In 1988, electricity prices went up by 9 per cent., at a time when there was no need for an increase, certainly not from the point of view of the industry. They went up by 5 per cent. in 1989, again for no real reason; massive profits were being made by the generating and supply companies.
The Secretary of State said that a further rise was on the way. I am not clear whether he meant to say that it would be below the rate of inflation. If we interpret that as meaning another increase of 7 per cent., then that, too, is totally unnecessary at a time when the industry is making massive profits as a result of the investment that has been made in it over the years.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East spoke about my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referring to a price rise of 25 per cent. It is all very well for the Government to talk in their amendment about
the downward pressure that this will put on customers' electricity bills",
but how can such a downward pressure exist when increases of that magnitude are occurring?
Privatisation is not about reducing prices: it is about raising them, before and after the sale of the industry—before the sale, to fatten up the industry and, after the sale, to meet the demands for higher profits. I regret that the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) is not in his place, because he likened the rate of return for the CEGB, as it was, to the profits of the then Post Office. It is clear that, if the sort of investment that is being made in the electricity industry had been made in the Post Office, a higher rate of return would have been required.
The London business school conducted a study into the subject of rates of return and the drive to maximise them. That study concluded that prices in the electricity industry could rise by as much as 33 per cent. by 1995, after privatisation. It also suggested that, if the industry stayed in the public sector, with its present rate of return, prices could fall by 12 per cent. That is the crux of our argument.
It was all very well for the Secretary of State to argue in terms of a target of 5 per cent. based on the last Labour Government's White Paper on energy policy, but he did not finish the story by saying what National Power and PowerGen believe should be their rate of return when the industry has been sold off. We are well aware why he did not do that, for he would have been predicting the sort of electricity price increases that were postulated by the survey conducted by the London business school. We need regulations to ensure that, if the sale goes ahead—I am by no means sure that the industry will be floated in the way that the Government believe—the consumers are protected.
We are faced with a threat not only to cancel the Government's programme to deal with the problem of acid rain, but it is being suggested that the programme is not of any great worth. In 1986, the CEGB first announced a 6,000 MW FGD programme. In November 1987, the Government signed the EC large combustion plant directive, which increased the FGD programme to the CEGB's estimate of about 12,000 MW.
It took until February 1989 for the CEGB to give the go-ahead for the retrofit at Drax. It now looks as though that will complete only half its first stage, even though estimates suggest that changed circumstances have increased the amount of coal burn that must be retrofitted to achieve the limits laid down in the EEC directive. Indeed, the estimates have increased the figure to about 20,000 MW because of the changes that have been made.
Conservative Members have been trying to raise the flag in favour of the PWR. But the cancellation of the three


PWRs has meant our having to retrofit a large amount of coal burn than would have been the case between 1986 and 1988.
On 17 May last year, the CEGB issued a press release proclaiming the successor company's commitment to the environment. It gave a pledge that
all existing major coal fired stations will be fitted with special burners to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions and many will be fitted with sulphur removal plants.
What has happened since last May? Why does the Secretary of State refuse to reaffirm that commitment?
Short-term economic gain has led to the reduction of the FGD programme. Originally, the contract was for six burners at Drax, but I understand that that may have been reduced to two.
The Secretary of State said that he would give my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras an undertaking, but how much faith can we have in undertakings given by Secretaries of State for Energy? The previous Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), said in a debate on the coal industry:
I am able to confirm today that we have asked the privatised generators to continue to plan on the basis of installing 12,000 MW of FGD capacity during the 1990s … If we were to revert to low-sulphur coal, we would have to import massive quantities from overseas. The fitting of Drax and other stations with FGD equipment will ensure that there is a substantial market for British Coal".—[Official Report, 26 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 764–65.]
Everyone knows what has happened between May and today. The Government have decided to sell to those who want to make profits from electricity privatisation. They are prepared to sell out not only the consumer but the environment.
The Minister must know that we have insufficient capacity to import the amount of low-sulphur coal necessary to meet the low-sulphur directive. Twelve large coal-fired power stations retrofitted with FGD would be necessary to meet the new estimate of 20,000 MW. Plant will be replaced, but it will not be enough drastically to limit SO, emissions. We shall have to consider small types of plant that can burn efficiently using circulating fluidised bed combustion.
The hon. Member for Erewash said that we are now seeing freedom in electricity generation and the development of clean-coal technology, but that flies in the face of what has happened since I have been a Member. Labour Members, with the support of some Conservative Members, have argued time and again for the Government to match the amount being spent on developing clean-coal technology at Grimethorpe.

Mr. Rost: The hon. Gentleman has criticised me, but, like the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he keeps referring to the high profits made by the CEGB. Is he aware that, if it had correctly costed nuclear power, it would now be showing not a profit but a loss? It has fudged the figures. If its costings had been done on a commercial basis, it would have shown a loss.

Mr. Barron: The CEGB has been making a profit. I accept that there have been fudges.

Mr. Dobson: Or fiddling.

Mr. Barron: As my hon. Friend says, its costs may have been fiddled, but that does not explain why the Government have decided to ring-fence the expensive nuclear power industry and guarantee it a generating base for the foreseeable future, leaving other more profitable means of electricity generation to fight with foreign coal in the market.
In 1988–89, the revenue of the electricity industry increased by £1,000 million. It made profits of £777 million, paid back £1,779 million to the Government and made capital investment of £1,492 million. On my reckoning, that means that £4,000 million was available to it in that year. The Secretary of State smiles; no doubt many people in the City will smile when they realise that that will soon be up for auction.
A retrofitting programme will have to go ahead. Even if the Government abandon it for short-term economic gain, it will have to come some time. It will offer Britain several major benefits. It will create and maintain jobs in the beleaguered power engineering industry, which, despite having the technology and expertise, has been starved of orders over the past decade. It will ensure markets for coal that is mined in Britain, thereby maintaining jobs in an industry that has been cut to the bone and keeping reserves accessible for the future.
Despite all that the Secretary of State said about the British coal industry and how well it has done over the past five years, the Government cancelling the FGD programme is a stab in the back for everyone who works in the industry, from the smallest coal mine to Hobart house. If manufacturing industry had done half as well as the coal industry in Britain over the past five years, we would not be in the economic mess we are in at present.
The retrofitting of FGD will contribute to relieving pressure on the balance of payments by eliminating the need for imported coal. Our energy deficit last year, in this energy-rich country, was £567 million. Are the Government seriously suggesting that we should import tens of millions of tonnes of low-sulphur coal? If they are, what will be its cost, not to generators but to the country?
The retrofitting programme will ensure that we are capable of meeting our commitments to the international environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, we lag many years behind other industrial nations in our attitude to and action on sulphur emissions. The retrofitting programme will reduce sulphur emissions. It must go ahead, and at some stage it will go ahead. It cannot be avoided by the Government trying to ease the flotation of the electricity industry to ensure that they have a better chance at the next election. The Government are doing a disservice to consumers who will have to pay more and, more so, to the international environment, to which Minister after Minister says that the Government are committed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): The Government welcome this opportunity, provided by the Opposition, to trumpet the continuing success of our energy policies, the continuing progress of our policies to improve the environment and the continuing success of our policies on privatisation.
The debate has been all too short, but some telling contributions were made by my hon. Friends the Members


for Rochford (Dr. Clark), for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) and for Erewash (Mr. Rost).
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford, who is the well-regarded Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, made some telling comments. I thank him for his clear support for the straightforward and sensible decision on nuclear power, made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He rightly said that progress to the full privatisation of the electricity industry is well on course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, who has long made a leading contribution to the development of energy policy, rightly highlighted the contribution that competition will make to continuing downward pressure on electricity prices. He rightly drew attention to the number of new independent generators who are eager to enter this new marketplace. He rightly recognised the energy efficiency and environmental benefits of combined heat and power.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, who is a keen member of the Select Committee on Energy, is correct to draw attention to the failure of the Labour party's energy policies when it was last in government, and to the wildness and inaccuracy of its predictions on electricity prices and energy policies since it has been in opposition. He is right to reiterate that we are establishing a competitive electricity market—a market in power—which will ensure that for the first time, there will be genuine competition in electricity supply.

Mr. Barron: Can the Minister tell us what the Government's estimates are on the rate of return of the newly privatised generators?

Mr. Baldry: I shall say something on the rate of return shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, who is also a keen member of the Select Committee on Energy, succinctly and effectively made clear the benefits that privatisation will bring to the consumer and to the environment.
Despite the best efforts and the good humour of the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), the debate has demonstrated beyond doubt that the Opposition have lost the argument and have got it wrong. They are wrong on electricity prices, on protecting the environment and on privatisation. Clearly, their motion is wholly misconceived. In the words of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, they have "spatchcocked" themselves.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister agree that his hon. Friends who are members of the Select Committee also got it wrong in their report?

Mr. Baldry: I always have great regard for the reports of Select Committees. However, the hon. Gentleman would be surprised if the Government of the day agreed with every word of every Select Committee. I have great respect for my hon. Friends who are members of the Select Committee. Nothing will detract from the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have spatchcocked this debate.
The position on electricity prices could not be more straightforward. In the past five years of this Government, we have seen industrial prices decrease by some 10 per

cent. in real terms. Indeed, industrial prices in real terms have been on a downward path since 1982 and are now at their lowest level since 1973. Industrial electricity prices are lower in the United Kingdom than in leading industrial nations such as Japan and Germany, and are comparable with those in the United States.
There has been some comment in the debate about the position of intensive users. International tariff comparisons for very intensive customers are notoriously difficult owing to the large number of special deals, the relatively few companies prepared to reveal the real price that they pay for electricity and the unwillingness of some countries to declare the state aids that they are giving their electricity industries.
In future, users over 1 MW will be able to negotiate prices in a competitive market. Those businesses are used to purchasing commodities competitively in the marketplace. Electricity will be no different and we expect many of them to benefit from price reductions. However, because it may take them time to negotiate longer-term arrangements, we have asked the electricity industry to ensure that larger customers—customers over 1 MW—are offered a real price freeze for one year if they cannot negotiate reductions.
In the past five years of this Government, we have seen domestic prices decrease by some 8 per cent. in real terms. Indeed, in real terms, domestic prices have been on a downward path since 1982. We see no reason why domestic prices should increase by much more than the rate of inflation this year and the price control formula should ensure that the price does not rise in real terms for the next three years.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in opening the debate, we expect the average price increase overall for electricity consumers in April to be significantly below the current rate of inflation.
I want to make it clear to the Opposition, as they do not appear to recognise it when considering rates of return, that the returns earned by the electricity industry at current price levels are not excessive. Over the three years from 1985–86 to 1987–88, the returns earned were only 2·75 per cent., which was well below the average for the private sector. That was also below the greater return of 5 per cent. for the public sector set by the previous Labour Government.
The position is equally straightforward on the environment. The Government will ensure compliance with the EC large combustion plant directive.

Mr. Barron: I asked a specific question in my speech and in an intervention. What is the Government's estimate of the rate of return of the new generators when they are privatised? It is an important question when one considers the amendment, which refers to electricity prices.

Mr. Baldry: I urge the hon. Gentleman to curb his enthusiasm and to look forward with anticipation to the: publication of the prospectuses for the generators. To return to my earlier point, the hon. Gentleman complains about the rate of return, although the rates of return earned by the electricity industry are not excessive at current price levels and are well below the rate of return of 5 per cent. that the previous Labour Government set.
The Government intend to ensure compliance with the EC large combustion plant directive. I must make it clear what that directive involves, because some Opposition


Members, including the hon. Member for Gordon, seem confused. It was suggested that the European Community wanted a reduction of 60 per cent. in sulphur dioxide emissions by 1995. That is not the case. The directive sets limits for 1993, 1998 and 2003 for emissions from existing plants. For the United Kingdom, those are as stated by my right hon. Friend: a 20 per cent. reduction by 1993, a 40 per cent. reduction by 1998 and a 60 per cent. reduction by 2003, all compared with 1980 emissions. We are determined to meet those targets and to ensure compliance with the directive.
The Environmental Protection Bill, now before the House, will provide the Department of the Environment and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution with the power to ensure compliance with the directive. We are determined that the directive will be implemented in full. The retrofitting of the 4 GW Drax power station with flue gas desulphurisation is already in hand at an estimated cost of well over £500 million and further retrofits are in prospect. The successor companies to the Central Electricity Generating Board—National Power and PowerGen—will complete a programme of fitting low-nitrogen oxide burners to all 12 major coal-fired stations. The capital cost of FGD will be taken into account in setting the capital structure of the generators.
It is clearly important that the international community should move to stabilise carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions at the earliest possible moment.
The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in the international work on climate change. Privatisation will help. Competition and market forces will encourage more efficient, cleaner and more diverse forms of electricity generation such as combined heat and power, and combined cycle gas turbines.
At present all of us still waste far too much energy. Energy efficiency—a fuel of the future—will clearly be greatly enhanced by the rise of competition and market forces. In short, competition will have increased the efficiency with which energy is used, while our legislation contains a totally new duty for public electricity suppliers to meet set standards of performance in promoting energy efficiency.
Perhaps the Opposition's confusion, as evidenced in both the motion and their comments in the debate tonight, is a result of the fact that they still do not appreciate the contribution that privatisation can make to our economy. We have a firm belief that competition in free markets is preferable to state-controlled industrial strategies, that the promotion of enterprise is preferable to bureaucratic interference and that there should always be a business philosophy designed to meet the needs of customers and consumers, rather than the convenience of producers. In electricity, privatisation will lead to an increase in efficiency by introducing more competition, so that decisions are shaped by market forces rather than being taken by Government Departments.
Perhaps the Opposition confusion is that they still do not appreciate that we are determined to have the most competitive electricity industry in the world. Perhaps they do not understand that a radical new structure is now in place, which introduces fundamental changes in the way in which electricity itself will be traded—through a pool or

spot market in which the price will be determined during every half hour of trading by the balance between supply and demand—a very competitive marketplace.
So let me make it clear. Electricity privatisation is well on course. Sixteen new and exciting companies are being created and people, including employees, will be able to invest in 14 of them. I have no doubt that in due course large numbers of those working in the electricity industry will wish to become shareholders in their industry.
There will be a completely new operating regime, with genuine competition being introduced. That competition will lead to greater energy efficiency and protection for the environment. In addition, we are determined to continue to play a leading role in tackling global warming. Competition will ensure downward pressure on prices. So our policies are good news for the customer, the consumer, industry and the environment.
The Opposition motion is misconceived and misconstrued. I urge the House to reject it and to support the Government amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 289.

Division No. 85]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Anderson, Donald
Dewar, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Don


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Douglas, Dick


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eadie, Alexander


Beckett, Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Beggs, Roy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Fearn, Ronald


Bidwell, Sydney
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Blunkett, David
Fisher, Mark


Boateng, Paul
Flannery, Martin


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fraser, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Buckley, George J.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gould, Bryan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clay, Bob
Haynes, Frank


Clelland, David
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heffer, Eric S.


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cox, Tom
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Cummings, John
Hood, Jimmy


Cunlitfe, Lawrence
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Dr John
Howells, Geraint


Dalyell, Tarn
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)






Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Radice, Giles


Ingram, Adam
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Johnston, Sir Russell
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robertson, George


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Charles
Rooker, Jeff


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Leighton, Ron
Ruddock, Joan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Salmond, Alex


Lewis, Terry
Sedgemore, Brian


Livsey, Richard
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Short, Clare


Macdonald, Calum A.
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McWilliam, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stott, Roger


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martlew, Eric
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Maxton, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Wallace, James


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wareing, Robert N.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morgan, Rhodri
Wigley, Dafydd


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wilson, Brian


Mullin, Chris
Winnick, David


Murphy, Paul
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Nellist, Dave
Worthington, Tony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, William



O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. John McFall and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Patchett, Terry



Pendry, Tom





NOES


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amos, Alan
Boswell, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Ashby, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkins, Robert
Bowis, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Batiste, Spencer
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bellingham, Henry
Buck, Sir Antony


Bendall, Vivian
Budgen, Nicholas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Butcher, John


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carrington, Matthew





Cash, William
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Churchill, Mr
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving, Sir Charles


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Janman, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Durant, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Emery, Sir Peter
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Franks, Cecil
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gardiner, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Madel, David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, David


Gregory, Conal
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Miller, Sir Hal


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, lain


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Sir David


Hague, William
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hannam, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayes, Jerry
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Needham, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Norris, Steve


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Paice, James


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James






Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Portillo, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Powell, William (Corby)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Price, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Redwood, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thornton, Malcolm


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tredinnick, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wheeler, Sir John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Speed, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Stevens, Lewis



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the significant progress made by this Government in preparing the electricity supply industry for privatisation; welcomes the introduction into the industry for the first time of real, visible and effective competition which will turn the industry from a producer centred monopoly into a truly consumer oriented industry; welcomes the downward pressure that this will put on customers' electricity bills and the upward pressure on standards of service; welcomes this Government's intention to see a radical restructuring and strengthening of pollution control through the Environmental Protection Bill; and welcomes this Government's commitment to complying with the requirements of the Economic Community's Large Combustion Directive.

Mr. Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been informed that a bomb exploded in Leicester this afternoon. An Army bomb was strapped to the back of a Sherpa vehicle, driven by an Army officer. Apparently it fell off the back of the lorry and caused an explosion that resulted in injury and damage to property. Clearly, this is a serious matter, which raises questions of why that particular vehicle carrying such a device was travelling through the centre of a major city in Britain. Have you had any intimation from the Secretary of State for Defence or the Leader of the House that a statement is to be made either tonight or tomorrow about that important issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the whole House is sorry to hear about that incident and the injuries that have been caused. I have had no such request.No doubt the hon. Gentleman will wish to pursue the matter and seek other opportunities to do so.

Mr. Vaz: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for what you have said. Can you press the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement tomorrow about this issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman, not the Chair.

Royal Shakespeare Company

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's poor treatment of the Royal Shakespeare Company which has forced the company to announce the closure of its two London stages for four months from next November; recognises that this is consistent with the Government's long-standing neglect of the Arts, museums and libraries; notes with disquiet that this has led all four national companies into deficit; is concerned that this inhibits their excellent work in seeking to increase and widen their audiences by means of education and outreach work, and by touring in the regions; and calls on the Government to bring forward immediate supplementary grants to tackle these deficits and to increase funding for the Arts Council to allow for expansion and development.
When the Royal Shakespeare Company was forced two weeks ago to announce the closure of its two London stages at the Barbican and the Pit, it brought to a head the miserable failure of the Government's arts policy over the past 10 years. In the motion the Government stand accused of under-investment, ineptness and inactivity. While one of the world's great theatre companies closes its London base, the Minister for the Arts has been silent. He has not said a word about it. Indeed, many people wondered whether he was out of the country. In the arts we have a say-nothing Minister and a do-nothing Government. The Government seem to have no sense of pride in our culture and certainly no sense of responsibility for funding it.
If the Royal Shakespeare Company's crisis is the trigger for the debate, it is certainly not the only cause of it. Its problems are shared by arts companies all around the country which are also in deficit or severe financial crisis. Tonight the Government must account for themselves and say what they intend to do immediately about those deficits and, more generally and in the medium term, about how the Royal Shakespeare Company and other arts companies can play their full part in the 1990s.
No one in the House would dispute that the Royal Shakespeare Company is successful. It has received international acclaim and is extremely popular. Last year its productions played to about 1·5 million paying customers. Yet it is in deficit to the tune of £3 million. Why? It is certainly not because of bad management, as the Government know all too well, because in 1984 they set up a special financial scrutiny by the management and efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office, no less, under Mr. Clive Priestley.
In a 500-page document Mr. Priestley declared clearly that the Royal Shakespeare Company was well and efficiently run. That is hardly surprising when, of its £90 million turnover and £5 million grant, it returns directly to the Treasury more than £5 million in VAT, national insurance and income tax. Mr. Priestley said of the RSC in his report that it was "palpably under-funded." He recommended that the grant should be increased to £4·9 million and that it should be maintained in real terms against both the retail price index and average earnings. The Government and the then Minister for the Arts accepted that report and, to their credit, raised the grant to

the level recommended by Mr. Priestley. The subsequent Minister, however—he is still in post—failed to honour that undertaking and to maintain those increases.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fisher: No. When the hon. Gentleman has heard the facts, he may not want to intervene.
In the past five years, the Minister for the Arts has not fulfilled the pledge of his predecessor. He has increased the grant by 1·9 per cent., 4 per cent., nothing at all, 2·4 per cent. and 2·2 per cent.—a total increase of just over 11 per cent. in five years, while inflation was 30 per cent. That was an enormous loss to the company as a direct result of the Minister's refusal to honour the Government's pledge.

Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman has made no mention of the fact that part of the deal to which he referred was the writing off of a substantial amount of debt which had built up so that the Royal Shakespeare Company could get back on an even keel and pay its way. The Royal Shakespeare Company could not make money even if it was sitting on an oil well. Rather than blame my right hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman would do better in seeking to be a trustee of the public purse if he pointed out ways in which tougher financial disciplines could be imposed within the RSC, not by the Government.

Mr. Fisher: If the hon. Gentleman will listen to the argument, he will see that, far from being rude about the Royal Shakespeare Company's ability to make money, he should praise it, because that company has done extremely well. It has done exactly what the Government have asked it to do over the past few years. If the Minister for the Arts had honoured the pledge of his predecessor, the company would not have a deficit of this size. In cash terms, the right hon. Gentleman's failure to honour his predecessor's pledge means a cumulative loss over the years of £5·7 million. The company has a present deficit of £3 million. If the pledge had been honoured, the company would be £2 million in credit and would not have to close two stages. The figures do not add up.
There has been bad faith by the Government. Although this is a crisis of the Government's making, we have not had a single word from the Government. It is extraordinary that the Minister for the Arts does not think that this matter is worthy of note and that he has had to be dragged to the House to answer for his inaction. The Minister has taken the attitude, "It has nothing to do with me—it is all to do with the Arts Council." He is an arm's-length Minister—his arms are so long that they are a mile from his body. That is not good enough. Does the House imagine that, if the Comedie Francaise in Paris were closing down, the French Arts Minister would have nothing to say? He would not allow that to happen.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Has the horn. Gentleman seen the Minister's replies to written questions this week?

Mr. Fisher: We want a statement in the House from the Minister. We want him to take this matter seriously. We do not want written answers. We want to hear what the Government are doing about it. The hon. Gentleman can plant as many easy little written questions as he likes, but we want proper answers——

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The questions were tabled by Opposition Members.

Mr. Fisher: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) in a moment. I know that he takes a lot of interest in these matters and may ask a slightly more intelligent question.
I should like to proceed a little further with my argument. At the root of all this is not only the Government's ineptness and inactivity—the problems go wider and deeper than that. The Government's policy is totally wrong. Throughout all this, both to the Royal Shakespeare Company and to other arts companies, the Government have been saying, "Don't look to us for money. Raise sponsorship. Go out into the marketplace. Increase your income."
In a thoroughly maladroit speech, the Minister said:
There are still too many in the arts world who have yet to be weaned away from the welfare state mentality and from the attitude that the taxpayer owes them a living.
The Royal Shakespeare Company is not owed a living. It gives back to this country far more than it gets. The Minister for the Arts continued:
If it is any good, people will pay for it.
That is the Minister's arts policy; that is his own point of view.

Mr. John Bowis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as fair as he usually is and acknowledge not only the quality of the Royal Shakespeare Company and its ability to raise funds, but his past tribute to three-year funding so that such companies can plan ahead. Does he agree that the company was planning ahead on the basis of an expected 2 per cent. increase, and that the unexpected thing was that it increased to 11 per cent.? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be some criticism of the management of a company that has had an extra 9 per cent., but which suddenly finds itself in such a mess?

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious point. I shall come to precisely the point about 11 per cent. in a moment.
The Royal Shakespeare Company has had no option. Because of the three-year funding, it knew that funding for the second and third years would be well below the rate of inflation. What good is three-year funding if the recipient knows that it is being funded simply to fall further into deficit? However, because the Royal Shakespeare Company knew that that was the reality of life, it responded exactly as the Government wanted. It did brilliantly. It went out and raised sponsorship and a £1 million per year deal from the Royal Insurance Company and others. It went into the marketplace and got its plays and productions put on in the West End.
It now has an income of about £1 million per year from "Les Miserables", "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" and "Kiss Me Kate", but Conservative Members say that it is no good at making money. Those productions are admired throughout the world and have played in many different countries. They are earning foreign exchange for this country, hand over fist. The Royal Shakespeare Company is very good at making money. It has done precisely what the Government wanted it to do.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) has said that the Royal Shakespeare Company could not make money

if it was sitting on an oil well. The Government have been sitting on an oil well for 10 years, but for the first time in this country they are about to charge for entry to our great galleries and museums, and for the very first time the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has had to publish a minority report stating opposition to those charges.

Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend and his hon. Friends have produced a well worded and well thought out minority report, which has been widely read, nailing the idea that we should begin to charge for entry to our great national collections. It is interesting that the Minister has not responded to that minority report, but I hope that he will do so. It will be interesting to know whether the Minister will say that the Government cannot afford to fund the arts properly. He knows that the arts are not funded and invested in properly in this country. However, I warn him that if he uses that argument, my hon. Friend has already effectively shot it.
Last year, in the Budget, the Government had a £14,000 surplus—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the Government had a surplus of £14,000 million—or £14 billion—and there will probably be a surplus again, but it is no credit to the Government because North sea oil produces it for the Government. Even so, the Government are not prepared to invest in the Health Service, transport, culture, or in the other parts of the infrastructure of our life——

Mr. Terry Dicks: It is the hon. Gentleman's culture, not mine.

Mr. Fisher: I disagree. The hon. Gentleman and I share the same culture, and no doubt we shall cross swords on this later. If the hon. Gentleman is paying attention, I am sure that he will recognise that he and I can agree on a great many things.
Although the Royal Shakespeare Company has been so successful, the warnings were made clear to the Government. Mr. Geoffrey Cass, the chairman of the Royal Shakespeare Company, wrote in the Arts Council's annual report last year:
If we pare to the bone every last financial commitment, leaving no reserve for the risk that goes wrong, then the worldwide reputation of the British arts will suffer. That is the danger of current Government policy.
That was the solemn warning that the chairman of the Royal Shakespeare Company gave to the Government and although the Government did not appear to respond immediately, to the credit of the Minister for the Arts, he appeared to respond this winter.
I now return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Battersea. At last we got an 11 per cent., increase, but it was too little, too late. Although it was welcomed by the arts world, I repeat that it was too little, too late. Ten years of Government neglect cannot be repaired by one settlement that is only 3·5 per cent. over the rate of inflation. We can juggle figures on this, but we can see the evidence all around us. Every single one of the great national companies has a deficit. The royal opera house has a deficit of £3 million; the south bank centre has a deficit of £1·5 million; English national opera has a deficit of £0·5 million. Rather coyly, the national theatre does not publish its deficit, although it admits that it has one.
However, the problem is not confined to national companies, theatres, other arts projects all around the country——

Mr. Nelson: That is not true.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman says that that is not true, but the Leicester Haymarket announced a deficit of £500,000 last week. The Nottingham playhouse, the Plymouth theatre royal, the Liverpool playhouse, the New Victoria theatre in Stoke-on-Trent, the Lyceum in Edinburgh and the Dundee repertory company all have a deficit. They are all in severe financial crisis, but the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is not so.

Mr. Nelson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will add to his list by paying the tribute to theatres like the Chichester festival theatre, of which I am a director and which, without any aid or assistance from the Arts Council, has paid its way year after year, built up a cash reserve and continues to pay its way and to provide excellent theatre at an affordable cost.

Mr. Fisher: Of course. Our case is not that every theatre in the country is in deficit, but that every national company is in deficit, as are a great many other important arts projects. Are they all to blame? Are they all at fault? The Prime Minister has a favourite trick of saying that everyone is wrong but herself. Has the Minister for the Arts learnt from his right hon. Friend? Is he going to say that all those companies are wrong and that he knows best? We need only read the Government's amendment to our motion to see that he is, because seldom can the Government have tabled a more self-congratulatory or complacent amendment. However, if Conservative Members read the amendment's claims carefully, they will see that they are not what they seem. They are Mickey Mouse figures which do not add up.
Let us examine the Government's case. They claim that funding of the arts has increased by 40 per cent. Apart from the fact that that increase includes the Property Services Agency's money for museums, it also includes, which is much more damaging, the £25 million of abolition money which is spent every year as a result of the Government's abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. We are not talking abut new money for the arts or a 40 per cent. increase in funding, but about the transfer of money that the Government have already taken away from local authorities. The Minister knows that that is correct, and he should retract the 40 per cent. claim.
The Government claim that the museums have done well, but the purchase grant of our great national museums has been frozen for between five and seven years. The British museum has received the same purchase grant for the past 10 years. The Minister says that the Arts Council has done well, but judged against the retail price index, the increase received by the council between 1979 and 1989 has been a princely 1 per cent. If one sets that increase against average earnings—people in the arts must earn something—it represents a 19 per cent. loss. The Government's figures are phoney. The only thing that is creative in their arts policy is their accounting.
The answer is out there—arts companies, audiences and the Minister know that. Our museums are being forced to charge and their attendances have dropped by between 40 and 50 per cent. Attendance at the Welsh national museum has dropped by 85 per cent. That is a disgrace and no way to guard our heritage.
Last year, the Royal Court's theatre upstairs, the Bristol Old Vic's studio, and Kent Opera had to close. The

Welsh national opera and the Hallé orchestra are facing severe financial problems. Northern Ballet has held on by an inch because of the enormous popular response that caused the Arts Council to change its mind. That all happened before the impact of the poll tax.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that local government support for the Hallé will be severely threatened by the introduction of the poll tax? As a result of the imposition of the poll tax, local authorities will look for a soft option when deciding on cuts. Should those authorities be poll-tax-capped, the arts might regrettably become the soft target for many local authorities.

Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, the Government refuse to accept that our culture is a serious matter and should be a statutory responsibility on local authorities. The next Labour Government will take a different view about that and I believe that that will be welcomed widely. If the Hallé goes down, people in the Lancashire constituencies, which the Government will lose at the next election, and throughout the north-west will not forgive the Government. The Government should not allow the Hallé to slip further into debt.
The Government can fool themselves, complacently, that they have done so well in the arts, but they cannot fool others. Last week, in an article in The Times, the Minister quoted his successes, but they are as phoney as his figures. He asked to be praised for the successful move to Birmingham of Sadler's Wells, but it is Birmingham city council, by itself, which is putting up that company's new £2 million home. The Minister had the nerve to ask to be credited for Glasgow becoming the city of culture, but he gave only £500,000 towards the costs—and only after being pressed to do so. Glasgow put up £41 million. Such is the Government's commitment.

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. Friend chose it.

Mr. Fisher: Well, that is fantastic. How very kind of him. If he had chosen to give some money that would have been more helpful.
To give credit where it is due, the Minister should say that credit for the city of culture goes to Glasgow and that the credit for Sadler's Wells goes to Birmingham. The Minister did himself no justice by trying to take the credit. That perhaps reveals another side of the Minister.
Apart from being too complacent, the Government have got their priorities wrong. I know that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is aware of that. He is probably partly responsible for it.

Mr. Tony Banks: He does not know anything.

Mr. Fisher: Yes, he does. In 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, military bands were funded by the Government to the tune of £62 million—due to the passionate advocacy of the hon. Member for Twickenham.[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) enjoyed my pun. The national arts companies, all four of them, received £32 million backing from the Government—about half what was given to the military bands. There is plenty of oom-pah-pah, but little funding.

Mr. Jessel: Army bands are one of our finest traditions. They lift the spirit of the nation, enhance morale and help


recruitment to the Army, and their members serve as medical orderlies in wartime. They do a great deal for our country and make a better noise than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fisher: All hon. Members enjoy brass bands. The hon. Gentleman is the parliamentary euphonium—he produces a lot of air, a lot of round mellifluous noise, and he is a delight to have around. Nevertheless, it is a strange country which decides that all its national arts companies together merit only half the investment given to military bands. That is purely comedy and the Government will judge whether it is a good balance. Compared with the rest of Europe, we are at the bottom of the league in funding the arts, with only Portugal and Ireland below us.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. Gentleman is looking at this matter entirely in terms of state funding, but the important question is the quality of the arts in this country. We have superb theatre and opera, we have had a string of wonderful exhibitions and, although its acquisition fund is so small, the national gallery acquired a string of magnificent paintings. The hon. Gentleman should look at the end product rather than the funding.

Mr. Fisher: No one disputes that we have some of the finest artists, directors, designers, actors and others in the world, but the Government will not back them. That failure not only limits wider access to the arts—that is our policy—but means that those people cannot contribute to our cultural and economic life. The Government should appreciate that the investment is cultural and economic and that such investment would reward a better return. The potential is there, but it is being neglected and theatres are closing.
In terms of funding the arts we are bottom of the league compared with other countries. The Comédie Francais receives more from the French Government than the Royal National theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company receive from our Government. What a message to send to the world! The Government who represent us care so little about the arts that they are prepared to see the Royal Shakespeare Company close. What a message that is to tourists, who usually come here not for our weather but for our heritage, countryside and culture. The message to them is "Don't bother to come to London next winter as the RSC will be closed." That message is economically stupid. If the Government were seeking to do something to sponsor tourism, they could not have handled the matter more ineptly.
The Government do not understand the economics of the arts. John Myerscough and the report from the Policy Studies Institute, as well as commentators around the country, have tried to explain to the Minister that 650,000 people work in the arts and the cultural industries and that they have a turnover of £12,000 million per year. The arts represent the fourth largest earner of foreign exchange. Leaving aside the cultural arguments, it is sheer economic stupidity and illiteracy on the part of the Government to knock back those things that stimulate that investment.
What do the Government intend to do? Will they give the RSC the Priestley sum and honour their commitments? Will the Government tackle the deficits and recognise that the free market sponsorship approach to arts funding is self-destructive? Will the Minister help the arts to develop

in this country? Even now, will the Government realise that the arts are not an addition to life which happen for a few hours after 7.30 pm but an integral part of our lives?

Mr. Dicks: No.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman may scoff. He should look at what is happening in Wakefield and Birmingham, where artists are improving the built environment. The Government should look at hospitals where artists are changing their environments through the British health care arts centre. They should look at what is, or could be, happening in transport, instead of the present London transport network. They should look at what Stockholm has done for its underground system and what could be done to improve the quality of everyday life. They should look at what could be done in education, through theatre and education teams. Sadly, the Government cannot see what should be done, but the public and artists can.
Artists know that they could, and want to, contribute to the quality of life in the 1990s. They are held back by the Government's underinvestment. The arts are one of the few sectors in which the United Kingdom is a world leader. That is reflected in our balance of payments, our reputation and the use of our language overseas. For the Government not to recognise the lead and the prestige that it gives us in the rest of the world is silly. The Labour party believes that arts and cultural policy can play a central part in the quality of life in the 1990s, but the Government do not. That is why the Government are letting the Royal Shakespeare Company go dark next year in London. I ask the House to vote for the motion tonight.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises the Government's outstanding record in supporting the Arts, which means that more people throughout the country are now enjoying the Arts at an unprecedented standard of excellence; congratulates the Government on increasing its funding of the Arts by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and by a further 24 per cent. over the next three years; welcomes the increased support of 31 per cent. to the national museums and galleries to restore their fabric and the continuing funding of the new British Library; reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining support for the Arts while supporting its approach of encouraging arts organisations to become more self-sufficient; acknowledges the important role of the Royal Shakespeare Company; and endorses the principle of arm's length funding whereby decisions about the funding of individual organisations are made by the Arts Council.'.
I warmly welcome this chance to debate the arts, and to do so in Opposition time. This is the first time that I can recall—I stand to be corrected—that such a debate has been taken in Opposition time since I have been Arts Minister. Every year, we have taken a debate in Government time. I am glad that the Opposition have come to see the importance of this subject. The debate also gives us the chance to celebrate the sucess of British arts in this country and the fact that British arts are recognised throughout the world for their high standard, quality and excellence—a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) so rightly made.
I wonder quite how I can best summarise the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I have come to the conclusion that it was somewhere between "A Comedy of Errors" and "Much


Ado About Nothing", with certainly the most enormous amount of "Alice in Wonderland". He is becoming the merchant of doom and despondency. Every time he intervenes, it is sheer doom and despondency, far from the reality of what is happening in the arts world today.
I ask the Opposition to face what is happening in the arts and to look at the subject with me. The annual attendance at subsidised performances which, in the mid-1980s, were 7 million, are 9 million this year and the forecast is that they will be 10 million in 1990. There have been the biggest audiences at professional opera than we have ever had in our history. In 1989—Museums Year—there were record attendances at museums of 100 million.
London is a great cultural centre that competes with any other in the world. It has great orchestras—the four great symphony orchestras—and two great opera houses. There is the BBC orchestra and the south bank with its royal national theatre. It is the greatest arts centre complex in the world. We can certainly be proud of what we see in London.
More generally, there are arts festivals in which the community participate, and standards of excellence are high. Those festivals have doubled in the past five years, to 600 today. In 1986, I was proud to recommend to my European colleagues, the Ministers for Culture, that Glasgow should be the European city of culture for 1990. I am proud that I was able to recommend Glasgow against other competing cities and I am glad that my colleagues in the Community agreed to it. Surely we can welcome that, and we can praise the people of Glasgow for the way in which they have made use of that decision.
The Royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra is a great success, under a great Czech conductor. The Tate extension is a great success. Many millions of the public have already attended it. The new national museums and galleries on Merseyside are increasingly successful. In two weeks, in Leeds, the new West Yorkshire playhouse will open.
There are many examples of arts as the centrepiece of expansion and regeneration of inner cities. From Bradford to Newcastle, Bristol and Cardiff, things are happening, and arts are at the centre. There was a debate about the future of Northern Ballet about a year ago. Look at how it has done in the past year, under the inspired leadership of Christopher Gable. I am glad that the West Yorkshire local authorities have shown their support for Northern Ballet by offering it a home there. A new concert hall is being constructed for the Halle orchestra.
It is the climate for the arts that matters in this country. It is important to let the arts people take the lead. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central did not mention the success story of the English Shakespeare Company and the Renaissance Company. They have had outstanding success and have received strong support. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) highlighted the Chichester theatre.
When we consider national museums and galleries in the light of what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, it seems as though he has not been around for the past few years. The number of museums and galleries in this country has doubled in the past 20 years, to 2,500 today. Our national institutions are extending their tentacles around the country. The national portrait gallery uses four country houses, the latest opened in north Wales,

at Bodelwyddan. It is lending and housing a number of its paintings there, and the exhibition is already becoming increasingly popular.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister explain why the Government have not raised the purchase grants of the national museums for five, six, seven and, as I said, in the case of the British museum, 10 years? Why does he believe that it is not important for them to have the money to add to their collections?

Mr. Luce: Of course I will explain. I have explained it many times, and the hon. Gentleman knows the answer. I was coming to it. At the request of the chairmen and directors of our national museums, I have given priority to the fabric of our national institutions. No other Government have set a target for one decade to get the fabric of our national museums and galleries in good shape. That is my objective, and the hon. Gentleman should support me in it.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Surely the Minister knows that, in spending the money on the fabric of the museums, he is dealing with the neglect that has occurred over the past 10 years. That Government, as has been said again and again by museums and in the Public Accounts Committee report, were condemned for failing to look after the fabric of those buildings.

Mr. Luce: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, has studied this matter, and the Committee produced a report on it. He knows perfectly well from that, that the poor condition of our national galleries and museums has accumulated over a long time. This is the first Government to set a target to get the fabric of those institutions in good shape by the end of the 1990s. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have supported that.
Sir John Soane's museum is a modest but important museum. The property company MEPC has given money, and the Government have matched it. The fabric of the museum will be in good shape within three years. The Government, with private sector support, have spent a great deal of money on major redevelopment of the imperial war museum. That is a great success and there was great public support for it. The national maritime museum is also a success. The Queen's house, an Inigo Jones house, has been refurbished with Government help and money.
I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was at the opening of the re-hang of the Tate—a great and outstanding success. It has 600 paintings on display in rotation at any one time. Its plans to extend its operation to St. Ives is well in hand, and it might also extend it to Norwich. There is also a Tate extension in Liverpool. There are exciting plans for the Sainsbury extension to the national gallery to be opened next year. The museum of the moving image has, with private sector support, been highly successful. By contrast, we can look at our heritage——

Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the Minister also instruct us to look at some of the figures for attendances? What has happened to the attendances at the museums and galleries since they imposed charges? In some cases, the attendance figures have halved, or are down by three quarters. The Minister should add that to his litany.

Mr. Luce: Nationally, there have been record levels of attendance at all museums, including independent museums which charge. The attendance figure for 1989 was 100 million—we have never reached that figure before.
The Government established the National Heritage Memorial Fund in 1980 and have spent more than £100 million on heritage—a great deal of money. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked, quite rightly, what we were going to do about preserving important objects of art. Look at what has been done—the list is infinite. With the help of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and many others, we have reached an understanding on the Mappa Mundi. More recently, the British library has purchased the Wellington dispatch, another example to which people would attach importance. The Government have accepted objects of great importance in lieu of tax, such as El Greco's "Fabula" for the national gallery of Scotland and two paintings by Hogarth for the national museum of Wales.
The Opposition's motion refers to libraries. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should make a speech as he did and not once mention the construction of the new British library at St. Pancras, which will be the largest cultural construction by any Government this century. We have one of the most wonderful collections, dispersed among 20 locations, which will now be housed under one roof in far better environmental conditions, with better service to the customers. The first part will be opened in 1993, and it will be completed in 1996. Yet we heard not one word about that from the hon. Gentleman. It shows that his speech was hypocritical and phoney.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister knows that I welcome the British library, but previous Governments take credit for that. The Government cannot claim sole credit, and they are not pursuing the plans to their conclusion. But how does the Minister address the fact that 200 public libraries have been closed so that people all over Britain, particularly in schools, are receiving a worse service because of the Government's underfunding of local authorities?

Mr. Luce: It is not right to suggest that people are getting a worse service. A number of small libraries, open for fewer than 10 hours, have closed, but the number of service points to the public has increased by several thousand.
The issue is how to create the right climate for the arts to succeed. That is what any Government are there to do, and that is what we are seeking to do. The rest is in the hands of those in the arts, and they need to be congratulated on their achievement in the past few years. We have rightly asked for their support to come from other sources, not just from the Government. The arts pride themselves on being self-reliant and independent. Freedom of expression and independence are at the heart of the success of the arts. The more self-reliant they are, the better it is for the arts. The arts are achieving that. The Government are there to create the right climate.
The Government are committed to maintaining taxpayers' support for the arts. There is a clear public commitment to maintaining taxpayers' support for the arts. Overall support for the arts budget has gone up by 40 per cent., including abolition money. If abolition money is excluded, it has gone up in real terms by 33 per cent. I am prepared to yield to the hon. Gentleman on that. Funding

for the Arts Council has gone up in real terms by 28 per cent. If one excludes abolition money, as I am happy to do, it has gone up in real terms by 13 per cent. in the past 10 years, using the GDP deflator that all Governments accept.
We have seen the introduction of new policies under the three-year funding plan. The hon. Gentleman has been generous about that in the past, and I do not want to be churlish about his remarks on that. But the hon. Gentleman did not mention the 24 per cent. increase in the cash budget for the arts in the next three years. The hon. Gentleman was good enough just before Christmas at Question Time to congratulate me on that achievement. I wonder where he stands now. He seems to change his position every day. There has been a cash increase in the Arts Council's resources of 22 per cent., with a 12·5 per cent. increase in the coming year. That is a good record.
There has been a 27 per cent. increase over three years in funding for museums and galleries, with special emphasis, which I think is right and which has the support of the chairmen and directors, on building and maintenance and the fabric of those institutions.
Against that background, and the introduction of three-year funding, the arts will be able to plan well ahead. We decided that in 1987, not the hon. Gentleman or his party. We decided that that would be a good basis on which the arts would be able to plan in the longer term to diversify their funding.
Therefore, the Government have spent about £500 million to underpin——

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Luce: I should like to continue, because many hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made a long speech, and I do not want to prolong mine. Others want to contribute, and I wish to hear their views.
The Government have spent about £500 million of taxpayers' money to underpin the private sector expansion that we have been seeing. According to the box office figures for many arts organisations, audiences are expanding and the amount of patronage from individuals is increasing. Sponsorship is increasing and, under the business sponsorship incentive scheme, has produced an extra £31 million for the arts.
Under the new incentive funding policies through the Arts Council, the Government are investing £12·5 million over three years, which it is estimated will bring another £50 million of extra resources for the arts from the private sector. Local authorities spend about £250 million on arts, excluding libraries. They identify projects which they think are worthy of support and which will be welcomed by their ratepayers.
Arts in the United Kingdom are rich in their diversity and achievement. In the light of what the Arts Council has achieved, and is achieving today under the excellent leadership of Mr. Palumbo, it can be proud of what it does. The arts cannot be static. Fashions change and quality goes up and down. Change is the key to vitality in the arts, and we cannot expect the subsidised or the non-subsidised sector to be locked into a rigid position. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman can see or understand that.
That does not mean that there are not problems. There always have been and there always will be problems in the real world, and they must be tackled on their merits, problem by problem. That is the right approach.
The hon. Gentleman dwelt to a considerable extent not just on the Royal Shakespeare Company but on our centres of excellence, and that is an important subject. A diverse range of arts is supported throughout the country. The difficult question for the Arts Council is how much goes to the centres of excellence, the flagships, and how much to other important artistic activities. The Arts Council, led by Mr. Palumbo, is mindful of the importance of centres of excellence, not just in London, although that is important as a great cultural city, but around the country as well.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). He has been an active supporter of the Royal Shakespeare Company ever since he became the Member of Parliament for Stratford. I agree that the Royal Shakespeare Company's record is outstanding. I recently saw a performance of "Coriolanus" as good as anyone might see. There have been 2,000 performances, 227 on tour at 29 United Kingdom locations, and it has about 40 productions in its repertoire. That is a major advance since earlier days. I pay tribute to the chairman, Geoffrey Cass, and his team, and I wish the new management every success.
The Royal Shakespeare Company is a national centre of excellence, and I am glad that the Arts Council has seen fit to raise its budget next year by 11 per cent. to just over £6 million. I accept completely that the Royal Insurance Company's contribution to the Royal Shakespeare Company of just over £1 million is exceptional. I acknowledged that when it was announced. I acknowledge too that its box office record has been extremely good. It now has a turnover of about £20 million a year. It is a great artistic centre. It is also a substantial business. That is important because, as with all arts organisations, it must be operated as a business.
Every arts organisation must operate within its resources and must cut its coat according to its cloth. I acknowledge that difficult decisions have to be taken by the chairman and management of the Royal Shakespeare Company, though I suggest that its three-year funding, which no arts organisation has enjoyed before, provides a sound basis on which to plan.
The hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central mentioned the Priestley report, but I believe that he unintentionally misled the House. To over-simplify matters, that report, which referred not just to the Royal Shakespeare Company but to the royal opera house, contained three recommendations. The first was to write off a deficit at a certain level; the second, to increase the core funding of the Royal Shakespeare Company to £4·9 million. The third recommendation was to adopt the policy of index linking or inflation proofing.
My predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Gowrie, agreed to writing off the deficit at an agreed level and to increasing core funding, which then became the new basis for the future. However, he did not accept, and nor do I, that that organisation or any other should be specially selected for index linking and be made inflation-proof. It is up to the Arts Council to decide whether or not, within its overall resources, the RSC should receive a certain level of

support. This year, support happens to be above the anticipated rate of inflation, but the value of its grant has been eroded by inflation over the past two years.

Mr. Fisher: What about the arm's-length concept?

Mr. Luce: I shall deal with that point shortly, because I am beginning to wonder whether the Opposition are any longer committed to the arm's-length principle, or whether they want to impose central control. If the Opposition have changed their policy, the House is entitled to know—and so is the arts world.
I am confident that the Royal Shakespeare Company will overcome its problems and will continue to achieve the highest standards of excellence. Certainly I am very proud of its achievements, as I am one of the other flagship companies, including the royal opera house and the English national opera. Together, they give more than 300 performances every year. Last year the royal national theatre won nine awards and gave 1,200 performances. I am glad that it has received an 11 per cent. increase in its Arts Council subsidy, giving it an overall subsidy of just over £9 million.
The hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central, by the tone of his speech and the implication that central Government ought to intervene left, right and centre, suggests that the arm's-length policy is no longer acceptable to Labour. I challenged him on that point in our debate last June. On that occasion, the hon. Gentleman's reply was all fudge, and he gave no clear answer. We are entitled to know whether the Opposition believe in the arm's-length approach or whether they are moving to a policy of central direction of the arts.

Mr. Fisher: I said that it was the responsibility of the Government to formulate a strategic policy for arts funding but that the details of grant administration should be left to the Arts Council. Our accusation against the Government is that they do not have a strategic arts policy for supporting the national companies. I hope that the Minister does not intend to end his speech without addressing the plight of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Will he do nothing and allow it to go dark all next winter? What will be done about the company's budget for next year? The deficit that the RSC and other companies share will not go away. The Minister may try to run away from the problem, but he cannot hide from it. The problem will not be solved unless he takes a strategic view, as he ought to do.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman just about confirms that the Opposition are adopting the view that they should no longer have an arm's-length policy. That is what the lion. Gentleman's remarks imply. He is saying that the Government should intervene every time that a national company experiences difficulties. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what an arm's-length policy is all about, and that really worries me.
The Minister's job, as I see it, is to negotiate with the Chief Secretary of the Treasury and with his other colleagues in government about how much money should be available to the arts under the three-year funding policy. The consequence of that approach is that the Arts Council will enjoy a cash increase next year of £20 million. How the Arts Council dispenses that money is for it to decide. It is not for the Government to intervene. It is not for Ministers and Whitehall officials to decide how arts


organisations should be managed. The hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central is saying that Labour is going for central direction of the arts and wants to eliminate the arm's-length concept altogether.

Mr. Buchan: Is the Minister now defining arm's length as saying, "We shall let theatres close"?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman flies in the face of reality. He represents a Glasgow constituency at a time when that city is enjoying a marvellous renaissance across a whole range of artistic activities, so I find his remark quite extraordinary.
It is easy to forget that much of what is available today grew up during the postwar years. That renaissance of the arts has been made possible by rising levels of investment by central and local government, by increasing private efforts, both corporate and individual, and by the efforts of the Arts Council. However, there is a tendency by some to hark back to the palmy days of the 60s, when the arts were at a peak.
There were many great achievements in the 60s, but it is also true that many of the great companies we are debating this evening did not exist in their present form 20 years ago. The English national opera had yet to occupy the Coliseum. The National Theatre Company was still at the Old Vic, and the Barbican did not even exist. In recent years, we have seen an explosion of arts activity and support throughout the country. That is why the Government increased funding to record levels. In real terms, our grant to the Arts Council is now worth three times what it was 20 years ago, which is a reflection of our economic and artistic successes.
The Government have shown their strong commitment to the arts and, looking to the 1990s, their positive approach to the quality of life in this country. I hope that the House will express its confidence by voting overwhelmingly against the Opposition motion.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am pleased at the opportunity to speak so early in the debate, and I want to pick up one or two extraordinary points that the Minister made. He still has not answered the question of whether his perception of the arm's-length policy is that one is content to let theatres close. It is appalling to think of the Royal Shakespeare Company, of all companies, closing theatres.
It is true that Glasgow has fought over the years to develop as a city of culture. It is doing all that it can to attract people to the arts there. Certainly it is not closing the Citizens theatre, the Tron, the King's or the Tramway. We are keeping them all going. If that is an arm's-length policy on the part of the local council, I applaud it. Arm's length is a matter of judgment. I accept completely the definition given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) when he says that arm's length is also a matter of strategic planning.
Are we to tell overseas visitors that we cannot even maintain the Royal Shakespeare Company? Imagine the French saying that they cannot maintain the Comédie Francaise. I wish that the Minister would shake his mind clear of dogmatic nonsense in respect of the arm's-length concept.
It was revealing that the Minister referred again today—perhaps because he knew that I was originally involved—to the Priestley report's three recommendations and to the Government's refusal to accept index linking. In other words, the Government rejected the one proposition that could have provided financial security and the facility to plan. The Minister applauds that decision, but the truth is that he has never understood the point and purpose of a three-year rolling programme. We pressed on him the necessity for such a programme from 1983–84 onwards, so that companies could enjoy a period of security. We tried to explain to the Minister that such a programme would have to be index-linked, because as inflation rose, any three-year plan would be made worthless if no provision was made for inflation.
Each year there should be planning for index linking of the subsidy three years ahead so that the company had three years' knowledge and understanding and could plan for that period of time. The next year, if the company was told that the subsidy for the third year was going to be reduced, it would understand. The Minister has never understood the position, and that is why the argument has failed.
That lies at the heart of his failure to understand the economic situation that he should be facing as a Minister. He told us about the increases in the past year—that is true. However, the applause when he announced the figures—for example, the 12·9 per cent. increase in subsidy to the Arts Council—was not applause, but sighs of relief. It was not to show joy. If one examines the figures, the picture that emerges shows the Minister's failure to understand index linking.
There is a 12·9 per cent. increase from this year's grant of £155 million to next year's grant of £175 million, but the increase from last year to this year was only 3·7 per cent. because the Minister failed to index-link the rolling programme. The combined increase for the present year and next year, despite that massive leap, is only 16 per cent., which is barely above the inflation rate—and the way that the Government are going, it will probably be below the inflation rate by the end of the year. What is worse, it means that, in the following two years of the three-year programme, in 1991 and 1992, the increases will be 4·6 per cent. and 3·8 per cent.—massively below the rate of inflation. The apparent jump this year concealed the planning for a cut in real terms.
The Minister argued that the Government were giving special support to museums and galleries, but the same argument holds true there. They are the most hard-pressed sector at present, or they were until the blow to the Royal Shakespeare Company. This year and next year, museums and galleries will get £158 million and £182 million respectively. That is a combined increase of 15 per cent. over the two years, which is just about, or perhaps a little over, the rate of inflation. We do not know yet.
For the following two years they will get 4·9 per cent. and 4·7 per cent. increases, which are well below inflation, and at best only keeping pace with it. That is at a time when our galleries and museums have never been in worse condition. They are in a crisis, and the crisis has had to be forced upon the Minister before he could see it.
What is the Government's contribution to solving the crisis? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central had to face that problem in the Select Committee. The Government's answer was to bring in charges. They brought in charges and halved attendance. That is a bit


like saying that we shall make our schools economic. We could easily have economic schools by sacking half the pupils and teachers and sending them home. There is no merit or pride to be had when Government policy has pressurised museums and galleries into charging and halved attendance.
The Government have never understood what sort of people attend museums and galleries. The evidence given by Neil MacGregor of the national gallery was among the best that the Select Committee heard.

Mr. Flannery: In his evidence Mr. MacGregor told us that when Sir Robert Peel opened the national gallery he said that those of us who have money to buy pictures can do it, but the national gallery is for people to go into. He also told us that the gallery used to charge one day a week for people to come in to paint and copy pictures, and on that day the general public did not bother to go there.

Mr. Buchan: Mr. MacGregor's evidence was fascinating and courageous, in the circumstances. That is also true of the British museum, which was built to be free for all time. The present director says that if a penny is charged for attendance, he will resign.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman was applauding the way that the French handle these matters. Does he not recognise that all the museums in Paris charge people and have done so for years? People accept that as a matter of course.

Mr. Buchan: I recognise that, and as a general principle I reject it, although there are other arguments that I wish to employ. That is an appalling situation, and I stand by that opinion. Paris is a city full of tourists in the summer and there are particular problems there, as all of us who have queued for the Pyramid will know, but the French are wrong to charge.
The best answer that I heard on this issue was at a conference some years ago, when the director of the La Plata museum in Buenos Aires said that museums and galleries are part of the emancipation of human understanding and consciousness. We must not put a barrier between people and the possibility of expanding their awareness and consciousness. That is exactly the reason for free education in this country, and free education is the parallel, not Paris and charging.
I know that many hon. Members want to speak so I shall be brief, but we must consider the argument on the pressure to achieve sponsorship in the arts. We warned that, as sponsorship increased, the Government would renege on their duties, and would not add to public subsidy, except through the sponsorship scheme. If a firm gives a quid for sponsorship—it gets good value for that sponsorship—the Government are also willing to give money, but the company has to prove that it will make a commercial gain as a result or it will not get sponsorship. That is the definition of sponsorship as opposed to patronage. The Government are willing to insert that sort of money into the private sector so that the arts become private sector-led instead of community, social and public-sector led.
The Government have been saying that sponsorship is a replacement for proper public funding and that is why so many of the sponsors are beginning to get angry. That is why sponsors are saying, "We shall not bail out the Government for failing in their duties."
The Minister explained why the Government had cut back on acquisition funds and given money for the fabric of buildings instead. The people who asked for that—the directors of our museums and galleries—are terrified at the condition of the fabric of the buildings. They said that they would have to do without another painting, piece of sculpture or objet d'art to save the roof. We have seen buckets in the British museum as the drips come in. The director himself has helped to place the buckets. That is the situation that we are facing.
Consider the prices on the international art exchange—£28 million for Van Gogh's "Irises", and £24 million for his "Sunflowers". The director of the national gallery could not afford more than 1 sq ft of the canvas of a Van Gogh at present. The national gallery would have been able to buy one eighth of the last Turner sold—"The Top Sail of the Fighting Temeraire". It would have been unable to buy the whole painting. That is appalling, and it is nothing to boast about, but the Minister said how pleased he was that curators and directors had asked for money for the fabric instead of for acquisitions. That is because they had no other recourse but to do that.
For a long time I resisted what I used to call the argument by the forces of darkness—the economic argument. I had so much battering over the head, that I changed my view, and I am now in favour of economic advantages for the arts.
Glasgow is a case in point, and I thank the Minister for coming in with support, although I think that other people prepared the memorandum that put the case for Glasgow, and I think that he recognises that too. Glasgow was in that position because the local authority had the courage to do it—Glasgow has spent enormously. A new concert hall is being built and the local authority has also given general support for the arts there. In the west of Scotland as a whole, support has also been good.
What thanks does the local authority get? A method of local government finance—the poll tax—which will make it extremely difficult to have that level of expenditure, not merely because it has been pinched but because of the nature of the pinching. The poll tax and the new gearing mechanism will lessen local government revenue and therefore additional expenditure on the arts. That is the problem that we now face.
I am not saying such things because I am a troglodyte Marxist. I was reading a very interesting article the other day, which said:
Those of us who were pro the Thatcher broom (and of course not everyone was) took it on because we believed if these objectives were achieved and that we laid low the attitudes of the past … a reconfiguration of the arts would emerge …
The new efficiency and the new prosperity would bring fresh initiatives from both the revived private sector and the revived public one.
By the end of 1989, it became clear that one had been under a delusion …
Alone, it seems, within Western Europe we have a Government which has no coherent philosophy on the role of culture within society beyond let market forces prevail'.
The Prime Minister is, of course, no fool and… Taking her cue from the majority of the royal family, she and most of her Cabinet know perfectly well that the fact they are rarely seen at any theatre, opera, ballet or museum will not make one jot of difference when it comes to the next election. Nor will one recent speech at the Tate Gallery compensate for a decade of inertia …
Indeed, Mrs. Thatcher may well take her place in the cultural history of this country as another queen of the Goths.


The writer also described the Government's philosophy as "bourgeois philistine".
That article did not feature in Marxism Today, nor was it written by me—although I might have used the phrase "bourgeois philistine", and indeed might have spoken in stronger terms. It was written by Roy Strong, who quarelled with me pretty strongly about the imposition of charges for admittance to the Victoria and Albert museum. He has now changed his view, and recognises that the private sector does not necessarily mean a cultural renaissance.
I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science has joined us. As his constituency is Stratford-on-Avon, I should have thought that he had a vested interest in the Royal Shakespeare theatre, but I shall not ask him to declare it. If Shakespeare had not existed, Stratford would have had to invent him; yet the Minister wants an end to all subsidies. He has heard me say this before, so he should not look puzzled. He says that farming subsidies should end, uneconomic nursing homes—or was it maternity homes?—should be closed and theatres should receive no public support. I hope that he has told his local authority that. Some bulwark he is to the Minister for the Arts!

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented me grotesquely, which is always easy to do by means of partial quotation, and if he wishes to be fair to the House he will be prepared to admit it. I have indeed said that his arguments for virtually indiscriminate and unlimited subsidy are fantasies, but I have always argued for a sensible level of subsidy for the Royal Shakespeare Company to assist it to fulfil the terms of its charter.

Mr. Buchan: I hope that the House has taken note of that. I shall dig up the relevant speech as quickly as possible. It seems that the Under-Secretary is now saying that he would rather close an uneconomic nursing or maternity home than close the Royal Shakespeare theatre; I would prefer not to pose such a choice.
The present chairman of the Arts Council was responsible for one of the most philistine development proposals in the City of London. We should take pride in what little is left of the City. I should be happier if the Minister recognised the plight into which he, or rather his Government, led the arts: he could restore more confidence and vitality if he fought. In fact, he probably has fought, but with an entirely philistine Government—a Government who measure the value of everything in cash terms. In their pursuit of cash, they have turned the arts to dust.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The whole House will have been interested in what the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said about Glasgow being the city of culture. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties wish Glasgow every success in this highly important year for the city. It is significant that both the Government and Glasgow itself have contributed to the funding of the "city of culture". That is as it should be.
Apart from that, I could not find much in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I could agree. He said that the Government's approach was to say, "Let market forces prevail," and that they measured everything in cash terms. I could not help recalling the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) an hour before; almost all that speech was about measuring support in cash terms, and funding with cash.
Surely what matters is ensuring that funding is seen as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. What matters is how well the arts are doing—how many people go to the opera, the ballet, concerts, museums, art galleries and cathedrals, and participate in the perception of the arts in general. That is achieved by a variety of means, of which funding is only one.
Because Parliament has a duty to deal with things in a financial way, we have a tendency to discuss everything in cash terms. Cash is an accurate way of measuring one aspect of what happens, but it is not the only thing that matters. The Opposition have talked much more about measuring results in cash terms than has my right hon. Friend the Minister, who thinks more in terms of the number of people who enjoy the arts. That is what really matters, and it is also an indication of how well the economy is flourishing.
Even if we measure results in purely financial terms, however, it is absurd for the Opposition motion to refer to the Government's "neglect of the Arts". Only three months ago they announced an increase of £66 million over three years, on top of the existing £393 million. We have heard a good deal about percentages; it is time that we looked at the figures in absolute terms, and in money terms. Total spending will be £460 million—an average, in a population of 55 million, of about £8 per head per year, or £35 per household. That is a significant amount by any standards.
The arts lobby, of course, says that it wants more. In a free country, it has the right to campaign on behalf of its beliefs and interests, but we as parliamentarians must make our judgment in the larger context of Government spending: spending on the National Health Service, education, aid for developing countries, the environment and the largest item of all—retirement pensions and social security, which take up some £50 billion per year. That has arisen not least from the improved standard of health, and the fact that there are about half a million more old-age pensioners in every decade because people are living longer. I should like us to spend more on the arts, but we must recognise that the Government's spending capacity is not a bottomless pit, and I do not think that the arts as a
The arts are flourishing as never before. They are contributing much to the quality of life, and there is an unprecedented range and depth of talent in the country. Last night, along with other hon. Members, I visited Tate gallery to see the splendid re-hangings of paintings. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for arranging it. The public are flooding in—there are queues every day.
As for the theatre, it is difficult to obtain seats for many of the best London shows. The national theatre's standards are brilliant. It shows some superb plays, although I have reservations about the architecture of the building. I was a member of the Greater London council 20 years ago, when we were told that the architect, Denys Lasdun, was one of the finest ever known, but that the national theatre's roof had been leaking ever since the


building was erected, causing serious problems for all concerned. The standard at the national theatre is remarkably high and is a credit to the nation.
More people visit the theatre each week than go to football matches. There is a tremendous range of marvellous concerts. As the Minister for the Arts said, London is the musical capital of the world. Recently, I heard two magnificent concerts at the Barbican concert hall. They were given by the London symphony orchestra, one of the best orchestras in the world. It performs regularly at the Barbican and attracts much less flak than the Royal Shakespeare Company; the concert hall seems to be run much more easily.
At one of the concerts by the London symphony orchestra, I heard the great cellist Rostropovitch play four cello concertos. At the other—a 70th birthday concert—the distinguished clarinettist, Jack Brymer, played Mozart's clarinet concerto and Mozart's clarinet quintet. Both concerts were sponsored by Shell—a fact that should be mentioned, alongside the sponsorship by the Royal Insurance Company of the plays in the theatre at the Barbican.
Sponsorship has multiplied 20 times in the last 12 years. A large number of industrial and commercial companies sponsor concerts, theatre and opera. They have sponsored magnificent productions of opera and ballet at the royal opera house. The English national opera at the Coliseum has also benefited from sponsorship, as have art exhibitions. There has been a flowering of artistic activity of all sorts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)—who, I hope, will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is opposed to any public funding of the arts. He thinks that entertainment of all kinds is of roughly equal quality. He and I must agree to differ about that. The human spirit needs more than the contentment of a cow or a cabbage. The best drama, music and paintings educate and fire the mind and uplift the spirit.
When the arts flourish, so does the country. The flourishing of the arts interacts with national confidence, as reflected by this country's success during the first Elizabethan age—and during the second Elizabethan age since 1980. In both ages the arts have burgeoned.
The arts also bring financial benefit. Visitors come to Britain not for our weather but for our history and traditions, for our royal palaces, such as Hampton Court in my constituency, for our beautiful cathedrals and churches, for our museums—which have doubled in number from just over 1,000 to 2,500 within a generation—for our theatres, concerts, opera and ballet.
Apart from the money that visitors spend on gaining entry to our theatres, concert halls and opera houses, they spend it on their hotel accommodation, and in restaurants and shops and on transport. The money that they spend generates employment and income and provides a tax yield to the Government, thus helping the balance of payments.
All these financial effects are difficult to measure with precision, but they exist. It is right, therefore, that the House, with its interest in financial and economic matters, should take that into account. It adds weight to the argument for support for the arts. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington never seems to face up to the importance of that argument.
The other regular tenant of the Barbican, the Royal Shakespeare Company, has had its Arts Council grant increased by 11 per cent. Its standards are superb. The

company started at Stratford-upon-Avon. Subsequently it gave performances in London, at the Aldwych and elsewhere, and moved to the Barbican. Subsequently it promoted musicals, some of which, such as "Les Misérables", have been roaring successes, while others, such as "Carrie", have been disastrous flops. That must have affected the Royal Shakespeare Company's financial position.
The amendment to the motion refers to the
important role of the Royal Shakespeare Company.
Perhaps its role ought to be to stick mainly to productions of Shakespeare. The company seems to have overstretched itself and lost money, and now blames the Government. Furthermore, its relationship with the management at the Barbican and with the City of London, both of which have given a great deal of help to the company, has not been very polite. I hope that it will be much better in future.
I was sorry to read of the fire 10 days ago at the Savoy theatre. That theatre was the home of Gilbert and Sullivan. The burning out of the Savoy theatre is at least as serious as a three or four-month stoppage by the Royal Shakespeare Company at the Barbican. The effects of that fire will last far longer than four months. Perhaps I am biased and ought to declare an interest. The interior of the Savoy theatre was designed by my step-grandfather.
Ticket touting is a repulsive trade. I hope that the Government will consider what can be done to stop it.
As for an arts matter that relates to my constituency, four weeks ago the National Campaign for the Arts published a table of what London boroughs spend, per head of population, on the arts. I was shocked to see that the London borough of Richmond upon Thames, which is controlled by the Liberal party, was the third bottom in the list. It spends only 65p per head each year on the arts. Its spending on the arts is exceeded by 22 other boroughs. Only 25 replied to the questionnaire that was sent out by the National Campaign for the Arts. There are 32 London boroughs. However, Richmond upon Thames was the third bottom out of the 25 boroughs that replied.
That borough covers both the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—who, because he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for the Arts, cannot speak in the debate—and mine. The borough has one of the highest intelligence levels in the country, as measured by examination results, and those who live in the borough include a large number of professional, executive and intelligent people of all sorts. It is shocking that this Liberal-controlled council should come third bottom in spending, per head of population, on the arts. It is utterly uncivilised.
That is made worse by the fact that recently the council spent £12 million on a new town hall. That was a shocking waste of public money. I hope that the electors of Twickenham will have something to say about that in the May elections.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Royal Shakespeare Company's decision to put out the lights for four months at the Barbican is truly shocking. It prompted the Opposition to hold the debate. I regret that it was so widened as to take the spotlight off the problems faced by the Royal Shakespeare Company and national theatres generally, thus risking the House not helping to resolve the problem.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) suggested that the Royal Shakespeare Company should perform only Shakespeare plays. That would be contrary to the terms of its charter, which requires it to develop the theatrical arts. It would also turn the company from a live, creative institution—the foundation of a national theatre before we had such a thing—into something quite different. It has developed ensemble acting, which has led to our theatre being admired throughout the world. That seems to be the only contribution from the Government to solving the problems of the Royal Shakespeare Company.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) set the predicament in context. He is right that the predicament of the theatre is only a visible symptom of the weakened condition of theatre in Britain today. In devoting a mere four minutes of a 26-minute speech to the predicament of the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Minister showed a quite extraordinary indifference to the problem. It is the Minister's responsibility to speak on those matters, not in some knockabout by a more junior Minister at the end of the debate.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that the Minister will wind up. Presumably he will listen carefully to what everyone says and then talk about the Royal Shakespeare Company in detail.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I did not appreciate that the Minister intended to answer the debate. The debate would have been better and more informed if the Minister had expressed the Government's views and policy on the subject matter which has been tabled by the official Opposition. We heard four minutes on the predicament of the Royal Shakespeare Company and I fear that that is a reflection of the Government's desire to distract attention from the plight of the theatre. It stems from the consistent underfunding of live theatre over many years. It is symptomatic of a failure not so much to value the arts as to match that valuation with an appropriate cash price.
Of all the art forms in Britain, the live theatre is perhaps the most universally admired, certainly throughout the English-speaking world. It draws visitors to Britain in great numbers not only to see classical works performed with epic splendour, but new plays admirably acted and innovative in ideas.
The Minister properly received appreciation when last autumn the Government decided to increase the budget of the Arts Council by 12·8 per cent., but he must appreciate now, if he did not then, that that was certainly not sufficient to tackle the problem of many years' standing.
The most authoritative independent inquiry into the publicly funded theatre in recent years was that of Sir Kenneth Cork commissioned by the Arts Council and concluded in September 1986. Most of the issues which give rise to the current plight of the RSC, the national theatre and other theatres throughout the country, were considered in Sir Kenneth's report. The central message of that report was that additional funding for theatre development fund with an annual ceiling of £5 million at 1986 prices should be made available and that figure

should be adjusted for inflation in subsequent years. No action was taken upon that recommendation and the consequences are not apparent.
The Cork report warned:
If no means can be found to finance the recommendations, it follows that either the proposed developments would have to be shelved or there would have to be some redistribution within the present theatre allocation.
It went on:
The choice without extra funds is stark: either withdraw funding from a national company for the benefit of the theatre of the nation, or allow regional theatre throughout the country to wither and become unviable in order to maintain two national companies.
The dilemma appears to have been recognised by the Arts Council, but if it sought to press it upon the Government then and in subsequent years it was certainly not successful in eliciting the required additional funding.
As the secretary general of the Arts Council, Luke Rittner, reported in the 1987–88 annual report:
We are disappointed that the gap between our funding of London and the rest of the country is still as wide as ever. No-one on the council wants to see the national companies held back, nor do we want to stifle the Arts in the Metropolis; however, unless there were a dramatic increase in overall funding it is difficult to see how we can ever really get the balance more equitable.
If it were not clear then, it is certainly clear now, but the Arts Council was hampered in making its case for what Mr. Rittner called
a dramatic increase in overall funding
by the preoccupation of the then chairman, no doubt reflecting Government thinking, with what Sir William Rees-Mogg called
the Council's objective to reduce the art world's reliance on subsidy and to lower the proportion (but not of course the absolute amount) of grant to the overall turnover of art organisations.
I consider that the years of Sir William Rees-Mogg were wasted. The problem was spelt out in successive inquiries—Priestley reported, Cork reported, the companies warned what would happen, and every commentator who knew anything about these matters drew attention to the fact that merely redistributing the Arts Council budget without taking account of that gap would result either in the closure of a major national theatre or the withering away of the regional theatres. That is what this debate is all about. That view was expressed as long ago as the Priestley report and the 1986 Cork report and has been reiterated by the Minister's own appointee, Mr. Richard Wilding, as recently as October in his published report on the structure of the funding of the arts:
The propensity to spread the butter too thin
had
already resulted in the grants to the four national companies being pared down to the point at which they can no longer put on programmes of the high international standard rightly expected of them.
The preoccupation of the Arts Council under Sir William Rees-Mogg and the Government with obtaining a balance between public funding and sponsorship has obscured, certainly for the past five years at least, the urgency of obtaining extra public funding to meet the objectives so well set out in Sir Kenneth Cork's report.
During the past six months there has been a partial recognition of the limits of sponsorship in the arts. It has come most notably from the sponsors themselves, who have made it abundantly plain that they do not wish to be


involved in the core funding of the national theatres, the national collections or any of the other major national artistic endeavours.
The sponsorship of the Royal Shakespeare Company has been exceptional—more than that of any other company in the country. Their sponsors have allowed some of that funding to be used for core operations but it is not preventing the closure of two of their theatres.
The limits of sponsorship were recognised to some extent in the Minister's success last autumn in obtaining a 12·8 per cent. increase but it was certainly not sufficient to save the flagship companies, all of which are in deficit at the moment and the Minister did not even mention the fact that the three other companies are also in deficit. It certainly is not sufficient to deal with that continuing problem.
It is clear that the Royal Shakespeare Company, which only six months ago was performing simultaneously 10 different productions in 10 different theatres around the country with the lowest public subsidy of all the national theatres and the highest percentage of self-generated earnings could not keep going. It has tried to do what the Government asked and it has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations. It has brought in more than 1 million people to Royal Shakespeare Company theatres in a year and 65 per cent. of that audience is not in London. It is right that the cuts should not fall on audiences outside London although tours are being cut. But the Newcastle and Stratford bases are being left intact.
No one has seriously argued that it is not an efficient company, though a rather nasty aspersion has been cast by some hon. Members. Nobody has brought forward evidence to suggest that the Priestley findings, which were exhaustive and which were made five years ago, were wrong. It is a unique company with five base theatres. Its self-generated earnings from transferred productions—from "Les Miserables" to "Les Liaisons Dangereuses"—are the admiration of the west end and of Broadway. The company has won the Queen's award for export achievement.
The burden of the Royal Shakespeare Company's case is that the three proposals of the Priestley committee—a committee set up by the Cabinet's own efficiency unit—have not been recognised in full. In his short allusion to the predicament of the RSC, the Minister said that he had never given an undertaking to uprate the provision from the base of £4·9 million of the 1984–85 year. I wonder what language means if the then Minister's statement in 1984–85 that
provision will also be made for subsequent years
did not imply—it was certainly intended to imply—that that base would not be eroded by the passage of time and the growth of inflation.
Mr. Geoffrey Cass, in his subsequent report, clearly said that the Government were not fulfilling their commitment—and that was a repeated statement. I do not know whether the Minister has previously said, as he did tonight, dismayingly, that there was no intention to uprate from that base in line with the Priestley recommendations. If there was no such intention, that fact should not have come out five years after the event. It should have been discussed so that the Arts Council could have openly made the case for the fulfilment of the Priestley intentions. It came as a shock to me to hear the Minister's remarks on that issue tonight.
The financial crisis first became acute as long ago as 1986–87, when the RSC suffered from the downturn in audiences due to the falling off of American tourism that year. There is now no way out other than a substantial increase in the funding of that company. Mr. Ian Rushden, chief executive of the Royal insurance Company—the major sponsor of the RSC, giving more than £1 million a year—said:
If we pare to the bone every last financial commitment, leaving no reserve for the risk which goes wrong, then the world-wide reputation of the British arts will be the poorer. That is the danger of current British Government policy. The strength of plural funding depends on all parties pulling their weight, the Government maintaining their grant levels in real terms, the sponsors maintaining their commitment for the agreed period and budgeted audience figures being set at a reasonable level.
Despite high inflation, a squeeze on personal incomes and an increase in the price of seats, audience numbers at the RSC have remained high—at a level well above that which the commercial theatre would regard as necessary to achieve success. The Barbican is now the highest priced theatre in London, and since 1985 seat prices have increased by 47·5 per cent. There is no scope for further price increases without the charitable objectives of the RSC's charter being infringed.
It is accepted as a matter of fact—the Minister did not allude to it, but I assume that he accepts it—that even with the increase of 11 per cent. in the subsidy of the RSC this year, it is over £1·5 million short of what is needed for the current year, and there is a cumulative shortfall in subsidy of £5·7 million. That will be reduced by only £1·3 million as a result of the closure of the Barbican and Pit theatres.
The Minister owes it to the arts, and to the RSC in particular, to explain with precision what his predecessor meant when he said in 1984–85:
provision will also be made for subsequent years.
I understand that the Arts Council has repeatedly drawn the Government's attention to that commitment in the annual negotiations on its budget, but no account appears. to have been taken of it by the Government in settling the Arts Council's vote.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman says that no account has been taken of such matters. Has he acknowledged that in the next financial year the Arts Council will get a cash increase of £20 million and that that increase in percentage terms is 12·5 per cent.? Does he not acknowledge that, when discussions take place with the Chief Secretary, all such factors—not just the Royal Shakespeare Company but the many other problems that are faced by the Arts Council—are taken fully into account?

Mr. Maclennan: I shall not be diverted from the subject of the predicament of the RSC and other national theatre companies by the Minister's attempt to divert attention from that predicament. I have given the Minister the figures. The money that he has obtained is not adequate to meet the gap, never mind to meet the kind of developments of theatre in this country that were recommended by Sir Kenneth Cork all that time ago.
The right hon. Gentleman is the responsible Minister. He is failing the arts and it will not do for him to pray in aid the difficulties that he has with his Treasury colleagues. Beyond that, because I do not wish to take up too much time, I will not go into the economic arguments for the


right hon. Gentleman's Treasury colleagues to meet the challenge that is before the country and the opportunity of drawing in more tourists to see our great companies.
The director of drama of the Arts Council, speaking last night at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, asked:
For how long can we in the Arts Council go on holding the bits together? Something is liable to give if additional funds are not available.
Those companies look to Parliament to offer some solution. This debate will not have achieved much if it degenerates simply into a situation in which
Two men look out through the same bars;
One sees the mud, the other sees stars.
The reality is a much more mixed picture than the Minister painted today. There are good and extremely bad things on the arts scene. A bad thing is the fact that the fabric of our national collections is disintegrating and that more resources are not being made available. Also among the bad things is the predicament in which all the national companies aided by central Government funds find themselves.
I took some encouragement from the remarks of the Prime Minister when she reopened the Tate gallery last month. In a notable comment, she said:
It is not enough to conserve the heritage: we have to enlarge it before we pass it on.
Will the Minister pass that message to his Treasury colleagues in coming to grips with this crisis?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak, but time is getting short.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made a cross-gartered speech, which I shall not follow.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has performed a service by bringing to our attention the plight and predicament of a great national company, but his utterances were not balanced; there was much sound and fury, but not much else. By nodding as my right hon. Friend the Minister spoke, he was giving a truer indication of his appreciation of the state of the arts today. My right hon. Friend spoke eloquently of a record of which he has no reason to be ashamed.
I was most interested when the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) quoted Sir Roy Strong—I am delighted to name Sir Roy Strong among my friends—but, like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, he got the thing out of balance.
My right hon. Friend was right to speak of the many achievements in the arts over the past 10 years, of the burgeoning of interest and the burgeoning of success, but, as he knows, I believe that all is not well. It is right to use tonight's opportunity to focus—I shall relate my brief remarks to what we are debating—on the plight of this great national company.
The Royal Shakespeare Company is unique. It is a great national company with two full-time national bases. At the Barbican, to the delight of hundreds of thousands of people, it performs the plays of Shakespeare. In Stratford, the birthplace of our great national poet and

playwright, we have, if I may paraphrase the Arts Council's recent publication, the "glory of the garden" itself.
The activities of the Royal Shakespeare Company must be conducted on a budget of £6 million a year—about £3 million less than that of the national theatre. I would not wish to decry the national theatre, of which we are all properly proud, but one must recognise that, under its charter, the Royal Shakespeare Company must concentrate on the works of Shakespeare, which, as most of us know, call for large casts. They are inevitably large productions to mount.
No one could deny that the Royal Shakespeare Company has done everything possible to maximise its resources. It has been at the forefront in obtaining sponsorship. It has never lagged behind in innovative techniques, consistent with the quality of the works that it portrays, and it has always brought much credit on this country wherever it has performed. It has performed abroad, and every year it puts on 136 weeks of drama in Stratford, London and on tour.
It is sad when such a company is faced with such problems. I hope that we can send a message from the House that we are troubled by them. I do not want the Barbican to go dark for four months this year—I do not think that any hon. Member wants that—but what can we do? It is right and proper that we send a message to the Arts Council.
Perhaps we could also send a message to Lady Porter. If she had done her thing by the English national opera, the Arts Council would have had a £2 million contingency fund that it might have felt inclined to use to help the Royal Shakespeare Company. We must never lose sight of the balance and plurality of funding—state, local authority and private—but I am very disturbed, and rather angry, about what Westminster city council has done recently.
What should we do to help the Royal Shakespeare Company? We should consider what Priestley said about underfunding—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on this—and the specific and particular problems of the great national companies. It is no disservice to the arts or to the nation to say that, if we allow the lights to go out in London, we are diminishing the arts throughout the nation. It is also appropriate to recognise that the great national companies, which have a particular national responsibility, deserve special regard when it comes to funding.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has many times given the lie to the view that he relies—or wants to rely—solely on sponsorship. Of course he does not. He has a good record as Minister for the Arts in battles with the Treasury—a record that has been acknowledged in the past by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.

Mr. Fisher: For this year.

Mr. Cormack: No, it is a good record overall. It was dented by an unfortunate rise in inflation. My right hon. Friend came back and obtained more. Last year's funding put the matter more or less right, although that does not mean that we do not want more. My right hon. Friend has a good record on considering the Exchequer and its responsibilities.

Mr. Fisher: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I paid tribute to the Minister when he obtained the increase last


year, although it cannot repair the damage, as I said earlier, of 10 years of underfunding. The hon. Gentleman will know of the figures that the Royal Shakespeare Company has issued. In every year of the previous five years, the figure has been below the rate of inflation. It was not just an accidental oversight that, in all but one year following Priestley, the inflation level should not even be reached. Every year since Priestley, until last year, the figures under-performed on inflation.

Mr. Cormack: I know that, and I know that the Royal Shakespeare Company has done well to try to bring money in from "Les Miserables", for example. I also know that, if the RSC had been able to take up the option to invest in the American production, we should not be having this debate today.

Mr. Fisher: rose——

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member has made his speech, and I hope that he will let me make mine.
The royal national theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company, the royal opera and English national opera stand in a special position. It is unfair to put a responsibility on the Arts Council which, if it has regard to all its other responsibilities, it cannot always adequately discharge. We should consider more earmarking and special funding for our great national institutions.
That point has been brought home in the last week by the predicament of the Royal Shakespeare Company. We considered the matter at the beginning of the 1980s in the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is an active and distinguished member. We took evidence from Mr. Priestley and from Sir Kenneth Cork. One could never say that a company over whose finances Sir Kenneth Cork has presided is profligate. That is nonsense.
We took evidence from them, and the needs became clear. It is clear that, if we want a Royal Shakespeare Company that will always be able to do honour to the greatest name in English literature, it must be paid for. That means being paid for by us, as well as by sponsors and by local authorities.

Mr. Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Cormack: I shall not give way again, because several other hon. Members want to take part in the debate, and however brief interventions are, they distract from and prolong speeches.
I say to my right hon. Friend that we should let the message go out to the Arts Council. My right hon. Friend has nothing to be ashamed about in his record, but in the next few months, as we move towards the next annual round, let us look specifically and in great detail at the role and needs of our great national companies. Let us see whether they could not be better served and more adequately provided for if we had more earmarked funding.

Mr. Maclennan: At arm's length.

Mr. Cormack: It could be. I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend should make the final decision on what the Royal Shakespeare Company has and what the national theatre has. Perhaps we should have a special committee of the Arts Council, and there may even be a case for a special body. If we are to sustain excellence in the

capital city—and we have excellence in the capital city—and if we are to promote the flourishing glory in the garden about which the Arts Council spoke, what we already have—good as it is and creditable as my right hon. Friend's record is not enough.
Let no one say in interjection at that point that I am asking for an open-ended subsidy, because I am not. But if one weighs in the balance what is spent on the arts and recognises their contribution to the spiritual and cultural life of the nation, and to its tourist potential and economy, one sees that we get marvellous value for very little money.
That is also the lesson of the RSC. It has made a hard commercial decision in deciding to close for four months. Given the figures, it had no alternative. I hope that, during the next few months, something will happen that will enable it to stay open throughout the year. I hope that we will be able to use the debate as an opportunity lo concentrate our minds on the very special position of those who honour our capital city and, in so doing, bring great credit to the nation.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) always speaks well and eloquently for the arts. I am sure he will join me in accepting that some words of John Masefield form a suitable text for the debate:
Some day, in this England that has so often borne beauty,
her genius will again move,
in the unexpected ways of insight,
Man will recreate the arts, or die.
Part of the genius of England is Shakespeare and part of the genius of Great Britain is the Royal Shakespeare Company. In accordance with Masefield's text, we should never let either the spirit or the drama of Shakespeare die but always seek to renew or recreate it. If we are to be true to Masefield's text we need more, not less, plays of the calibre and standard set by the productions of the Royal Shakespeare Company of "King Lear", "Romeo and Juliet" and "Hamlet".
To be fair, I know of two Ministers who wholeheartedly believe in Masefield's text. Unfortunately for lovers of Shakespeare, however, both are French. One is President. Francois Mitterrand and the other is Minister of Culture Jack Lang. Whereas Francois Mitterrand is the greatest patron of the arts since Louis XIV, our Prime Minister is a legendary philistine. She simply does not understand how Shakespeare moves the human spirit, delights the senses and excites the imagination. She cannot understand Shakespeare because she does not have a sense of humour or a proper sense of tragedy, nor can she cope with irony, which is essential to understanding Shakespeare.
Jack Lang is perhaps the most popular Minister in the French Government. With great respect, I have to say to our Minister that only his close relatives and the fawningly obsequious would put him in that category. The truth is that, unless he has something special to tell us when he replies, he has not lifted a finger to help the Royal Shakespeare Company in the current crisis. In answer to parliamentary questions put down by myself, he has hidden behind the arm's-length principle. That is what he has done in the amendment. In so doing, he seeks to put the blame on the Arts Council. The Government and the Arts Council between them are seeking to get out of the mess by playing off high art against popular culture, the


regions against London, and inner-city London against central London. As an inner-city London Member, let me say that we should have none of it.
It is perhaps not surprising that the Arts Council, having created the present shambolic position by underfunding the RSC since the 1984 Cabinet report, has reacted pathetically. It may be time for high Tory Peter Palumbo, chairman of the Arts Council, to follow Shakespeare's Richard II and think of giving up his empire.
 … for a little grave,
A little little grave, an obscure grave",
as befits his little, little, obscure talents. If the real value of the subsidy recommended by the Cabinet Office in the 1984 report had been instituted, we should not be here today talking about closing down the Barbican and the Pit theatres, because the Arts Council grant to the RSC for 1990 would be £1,525,500 more than is proposed. The cumulative shortfall that we would pay to the RSC would be £5,708,479.10.
Some 40 Labour Members have condemned the conduct of the Arts Council in that Back Bench affair. No Back-Bench Tory Member has come to their aid with amendments to the motion on the Order Paper. In early-day motion 505, Members from all parts of the kingdom called on Peter Palumbo either to find more money for the RSC or to resign. No Conservative Member has come to his rescue. Peter Palumbo has shown that he is not up to the job. He is in danger of turning the RSC—a priceless national asset—into a national liability. In my view, he should seriously consider resigning, not as some dramatic gesture to the people in the Gallery but as part of the desperate need to bring home to both the public and the Government just how deep the crisis is.
Some people have asked me why the Arts Council has suddenly come forward with money for the English national opera but has not found extra money for the Royal Shakespeare Company. I should say immediately that I am pleased that English national opera has been given more money. I like opera. When I leave this lunatic asylum tonight, as on most evenings, I shall play some opera records. When I go to hear live opera in this country, I usually visit the ENO.
What the Government have done is odd, because the RSC fits the Government's model better than ENO. The RSC obtains 51 per cent. of its income from the box office, whereas only 30 per cent of ENO's income comes from the box office. The Government's subsidy to the RSC is only 32 per cent. of its total income, whereas the subsidy to ENO is 50 per cent.
What is the reason for the discrepancy in the Government's approach to those two institutions? In theory the market orientated approach of the RSC should please the Government more than the approach of ENO. The answer is simple. Despite what the Minister has said, the Government effectively abandoned the arm's-length principle when they made it clear to the Arts Council that, out of the extra funding they gave it not so long ago, they expected it to give more money to ENO.
The Government do not care about the RSC. I challenge the Minister on this. It was not me, but Roger Bramble from Westminster city council, who said that the Minister knows full well that some of the extra cash given to the Arts Council was earmarked for ENO and the

English national ballet. That does not say much for the arm's length principle, which I do not consider to be important.
If I may use a little irony, I do not suppose that the extra money for ENO has anything to do with the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has provided the extra cash for the arts, lists his recreation in "Who's Who" as opera or the fact that his wife is an opera singer, an opera buff and an opera biographer. Although I have nothing against grants for the arts being distributed on the basis of the sexual politics of the Chancellor's bedroom, that way of settling matters certainly can cause problems.
If I wanted more money for the RSC, what should I do? Clearly, I would not go to the Arts Council or the Minister because they do not have the power to provide more money. I am loth to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer direct because, in the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, I constantly accuse him of being an economic illiterate. It seems that my only hope would be to try to form a liaison dangereuse with the Chancellor's wife, persuade her to act as an agent provocateur and hope that the esprit de la chambre coucher will triumph. I know that we have to translate our foreign language phrases in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Roughly translated, that means that the only way for me to obtain more money for the RSC is to have an illicit affair with the Chancellor's wife and hope that she will use her seductive wiles to obtain the money.
Talking more seriously about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the report of Terry Hands, who I see in the Gallery—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—the report of the person whom I do not see in the Gallery, to the council of the Royal Shakespeare company on 7 February this year, showed how the Chancellor's economic policies of high inflation and high interest rates have pushed RSC audiences down to 75 per cent. of capacity. Although that figure is still astonishingly high, it means that there is bound to be another substantial operating deficit for the RSC this year.
Terry Hands has made it clear that we are fighting an ideological battle for the hearts and minds, the intellect and the imagination of the British people. We are fighting an ideological battle between the materialists, the philistines and the fashionably vulgar in modern Conservative Britain, and the civilised, educated and cultured Britain to which the rest of us aspire.
As the Minister for the Arts goes into the Lobby tonight to vote against us, he will carry with him our contempt, our scorn and our ridicule. We must all hope that the evil that he does in the Lobby tonight will not live after him but be interred with his bones.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I have sat in the Chamber since 7 o'clock, and I have not heard so much pompous nonsense in all my life. As always in arts debates, the great and the good come forward in their droves and talk a lot of nonsense, expecting all the ordinary people in this country to believe it.
What surprises me most is that, with all the problems that the Labour party alleges are happening nationally and internationally, Opposition Members could find nothing better to discuss this evening than the Royal Shakespeare Company. However, I think that I know the answer to


that. It is because their leading spokesman and his deputy—a couple of middle-class socialists—know much less about the working class than I do.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Upper-class, not middle-class.

Mr. Dicks: I apologise: I understand that they are upper-class, not middle-class.
Arts grants have increased by £33 million this year and now approach £500 million. That is a 12 per cent. increase. The Arts Council grant is now about £175 million. In a recent debate, the Minister said that that is because inflation has gone ahead faster than the allowance that he fed into the figures and he almost apologised for the suffering caused to the arts world as a result. But there have been no apologies elsewhere about the suffering caused to ordinary people because the money that they receive does not keep up with inflation.
At the time, the arts lobby, and especially the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) were delighted by the grant. The Minister was tremendously praised for his efforts. I should like to ask a couple of questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is no longer in his place——

Mr. Jessel: I am here.

Mr. Dicks: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. My hon. Friend said that the arts contribute to the quality of life. Perhaps he could explain to me one day how the arts' contribution to the quality of life affects my pensioners and ordinary people who want to buy a pint and have a game of bingo—[Interruption.] Their quality of life is not enhanced by seeing some man prance about in a box or by listening to the different range of an opera singer.
Other questions that I should like to ask—which nobody answers, certainly not any of the great and the good on the Opposition Benches—is, what is art? What is culture? Who defines it? The answers to those questions are personal, but I know who the hell pays for it. The ordinary chap down the street pays for most of it, while the great and the good take advantage.
We have heard about the royal opera house. I shall show the way in which it thinks about money. I gather that it is about £3 million in debt. It spent £200,000 recently on a production. It has agreed to a 15 per cent. increase for ballet dancers who prance around, pretending they are toys, at an annual cost of £600,000. I find it strange that the arts world is up in arms about the lack of money yet ballet dancers can get a 15 per cent. increase, which is twice the rate of inflation. Nobody mentions that—certainly no Opposition Member has mentioned it. When extra money is called for, all the whingers appear on both sides of the Chamber [Interruption.] Every man, well and good, appears. Nobody should need to question the situation: everyone should understand what needs to be done. Why should we subsidise old pros dressed in doublets and hose? I do not understand.
In common with my right hon. Friend the Minister, I could say that it is all "Much Ado About Nothing", but I am not an expert on Shakespeare. The Royal Shakespeare Company has made its bed and it must lie on it. I see no justification for a grant increase, nor can I see any justification for any grant. No one in the working class, or

the people I represent, could give a toss about the Royal Shakespeare Company staying open or closing down. There is nothing special about it.
One can compare and contrast the RSC with the commercial theatre, which must survive by putting on a programme that people are prepared to pay an economic cost to see. The same argument applies to professional football. In common, I am sure, with many colleagues I received a copy of a letter from Ken Bates, who is the chairman of Chelsea football club. He says:
The Arts Council grant to the Opera House this year is more than £13·3 million, or £75,000 a week … I'd be interested to know what percentage that is of the Opera House's total income.
So would I.
Far from offering us any subsidy or assistance, it"—
the Government—
takes £300 million a year in betting tax out of the game, which is equal to £3 million per Football League club
Is it not strange that the working-class pastime gets hammered by the taxman while the upper-class pastime—I notice that a member of the middle class is sitting next to the upper-class man on the Opposition Front Bench—is subsidised all the time by the rest of us.
The poor chap down the road must pay the full whack to see Brentford or Chelsea, apart from the cost that he must meet in the future towards increased safety in those football grounds. He must pay for that ticket from his own pocket, but the great and the good, in their bow ties and long frocks, get them paid for by someone else. It is strange that we adopt such an approach to the upper class in this House and we forget the ordinary people who put us here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that the audience is so good, and that most of the audience have had a good dinner.
Child benefit has not been uprated for a couple of years and the ambulance men are being offered only 6·5 per cent. for this year——

Mr. John Battle: What has the hon. Gentleman done about that?

Mr. Dicks: I spoke against the decision not to give the ambulance men that increase, so I am on the right side. On the community charge, only 4 per cent. is allowed for inflation in the rate support grant settlement; that is why I voted against it recently. All those figures are way below inflation, but 12 per cent. funding was given to the arts this year, and I believe that 11 per cent. will be given to the arts next year. Why is that genuine need, as represented by child benefit, the ambulance men or an inflation allowance in the rate support grant are downgraded when they receive Government grant, yet the arts receive 12 per cent. funding, way above inflation?
The arts are the only areas of activity not looked at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but every other aspect of Government spending is examined year by year to see if it is fair. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has a point, bearing in mind his views about the background of the Chancellor and of his wife. The Government emphasis on public expenditure control cannot be as firm as they claim when they give money to the arts.
I can see no case for any arts subsidy, and there is no case for helping the Royal Shakespeare Company. Economic costing is the only fair way in which to operate. If people think that something is that good, they are prepared to pay the full cost. The only reason why people


go to the RSC now is that the rest of us pay 30 quid towards their seat. That cannot be right. No leisure pursuit, mine or anyone else's, should be subsidised. My football watching and old-age pensioners' bingo playing have as much right to be subsidised as the arts although, preferably, nobody should be subsidised.
The definition of what is or is not art has never been given by the arty-farty crowd opposite—[Laughter.] I am sorry if I used the wrong word, but I do not know the French equivalent. To subsidise or not to subsidise, that is the question. In my view, the answer should be an emphatic no.

Mr. Frank Haynes: That really was a two-faced contribution. I watch what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) does in this Chamber: whenever a proposal that the Government oppose is made from the Opposition Dispatch Box in the interests of those people at the lower end of the scale, particularly the lower-paid workers, the hon. Gentleman goes into the No Lobby. He does not support us, and that is why his contribution was two-faced. He does not realise that many people in the lower income group are interested in the arts. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] Who said rubbish? This is wrong—we have the deputy Chief Whip saying, "Rubbish," to a contribution that was made by the Opposition. I shall have to refer him to the Chief Whip for the contribution that he has just made.
It is important to note that the two-faced contribution of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was as bad as the Minister's speech. The Minister is not listening, but talking to the deputy Chief Whip who just said, "Rubbish." I said that the Minister's speech was as bad as the hon. Gentleman's speech because the Minister put on a lot of gloss and left out much of the substance underneath. The Minister should realise that there is a lot of suffering in the arts.
There is a crisis, and not just in the London area, where everyone wants to come to work, live and make pots of money. I live in a constituency up in the east midlands, where people struggle. We have an interest in the arts, but slowly but surely, because of the Government's attitude, we are losing it. The Minister has some responsibility for that. They tell me that he is Minister for the Arts, yet he can stand up at the Dispatch Box and say, "It's his responsibility and his responsibility, but not mine." Who is he kidding? The Prime Minister appointed him to do a job on behalf of the arts of this country. It is high time he started to do it properly.
The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has a smile on his face. I shall remind the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes that not long ago we had a first-class debate on the film industry. I remember talking about his beautiful mother who worked in that industry—she is gorgeous. I am not afraid to say that I have held her in my arms—[Laughter.] I am talking about real art.
Nottinghamshire county council and my own Ashfield district council contribute fairly strongly to the arts locally, but the Government destroy them by the cuts that they have made in grants to local authorities. That means

that there have to be cuts here, there and everywhere. That is what they are like; that is what they are all about. They make cuts here, there and everywhere.
The Minister must realise that there is real quality in the arts at the lower end of the scale, and we want to lift the people who provide that into the gloss about which the Minister talked earlier. The gloss can look after itself, but what is beneath that needs looking after and the Minister is responsible for that. That is why we have had this debate today. That is why we want to tell the Minister in no uncertain terms how we feel and what should be done. We do not want to listen to stupid contributions such as the one we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
There is a crisis in the arts throughout Britain. The Minister made a little comment to me at the last Question Time on the arts. He made a marvellous contribution today, which was real acting: it was not honest; it was not true. I suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, consult the powers that be with a view to providing a drama award in the House. Let the first award be made to the Minister for the Arts. I have got my own back, have I not? I was waiting for the opportunity and, by God, it came along tonight. I have had to wait since 2.30 but, by God, it was worth it.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I have been called upon, Mr. Speaker, to do the impossible—to follow two magnificent acts. It only goes to prove the old theatrical principle that the audience will follow a star performer. To see hon. Members return to the Chamber when my hon. Friend for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) rose to his feet was a measure of the significance and great importance of his contribution to the arts and to the debate in the House.
The subject that we are debating causes sadness and regret on both sides of the House. When a great, much respected and much loved company which gives so much pleasure to so many finds it necessary to cut the number of its performances and productions, we must feel some sadness. We recognise that the theatre presents the world of fantasy upon the stage, but we must also realise that it lives in the world of reality offstage. It has to make many artistic judgments and, at the same time, many commercial judgments. The need to bring those two judgments into balance is one of the great difficulties with which all cultural and artistic endeavour has to wrestle. Today we recognise that the cultural and the commercial, the artistic and the real, produce a tension which is of value in espousing and encouraging cultural endeavour.
The threat to the Royal Shakespeare Company comes from its presentation of classical drama. It has been innovative and has encouraged wider development, but the time has come for it to consider its identity, to think about the thing that it does best, to bring into balance its commercial and cultural concerns and to look to the future in a spirit of positive optimism, not with regret that it has had to close one of its stages for a short time during the year.
The debate also raises the wider issue of what should be a Government's policy in such a situation. Conservative Members have endorsed the Government's policy that the arm's-length principle should apply—that money should be given to an intermediary, which is independent and


objective in its artistic judgment, to ensure that the money is allocated in the best possible way without any direct Government interference in the cultural or artistic input.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and other Opposition Members have paid lip service to the arm's-length principle, but I suspect that that implied a financial finger firmly in the artistic pie. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the arts should rely on state subsidies, on public money, as their main source of support. I believe that the arts have blossomed by virtue of the diversity of their funding. Money should and does come from the state, in the form of public subsidy through the Arts Council, but it should also come from sponsorship, for corporate reasons, from individual firms, whose motives may be higher in some cases than in others. A third but most important ingredient is the box office—the individual contribution and desire to pay the price of a ticket to see a production.
The benefit to the arts of receiving funding from those three sources is inestimable. The danger of any arts organisation, institution or theatre relying for its funding on a single source is that it will become wholly dependent on that source. We have known instances in the past when an entirety of public funding has brought with it implications of corruption.
The Government's policy of a plurality of funding has brought about a flourishing of the arts, the like of which has not been seen before this century. It has brought about a diversity of the arts. A diversity of funding brings about a diversity of production, and that should be applauded.

Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the shadow Arts Minister, the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on being so determined to arrange this debate in what is obviously Opposition prime time. They had to face a bit of flak from their own side, because the Terry Dicks tendency is behind us as well as in front of us.
My right hon. and hon. Friends know that an economically efficient and socially just society will not only address the problems of homelessness, poverty and unemployment that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) mentioned. Such a society will support also a thriving and burgeoning arts expenditure. It is a mark of a confident and strong society that it encourages and nurtures the arts. The Victorians did it in the past in this country, and the French, Germans and Italians do it today.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is not in his place, because listening to him opining on the arts is rather like listening to Vlad the Impaler presenting "Blue Peter". The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly living proof that a pig's bladder on a stick can be elected as a Member of Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know—but although the hon. Gentleman's comments may not be very pleasant, they are not unparliamentary.

Mr. Banks: They were artistic, Mr. Speaker. I am just sorry that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was not in his place to hear them. Still, I do not wish to offend you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a comment on the depressing state of Britain today, with all its economic inefficiencies and social injustices, that a great cultural institution such as the Royal Shakespeare Company faces the crisis that it does. I speak of the theatre that bears and propagates the name of the greatest English playwright. However, the crisis that afflicts the RSC is not confined to that company. The English national opera, royal opera house, south bank centre, London Festival Ballet and royal national theatre all face similar problems. Those problems extend to our museums and art galleries. We have heard complaints about the crumbling fabric of the Victoria and Albert museum and of the British museum that should shame us all. We are squandering a wonderful inheritance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned regional arts institutions, which are struggling to survive. We are not just talking about high art or middle-class art, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned, but all the provincial and municipal theatres in towns and cities throughout the country, which provide a lot of pleasure for working-class people and are also facing a crisis.
My own theatre, the Theatre royal, Stratford, is one——

Mr. Cormack: This is your theatre.

Mr. Banks: is a damn sight more compensated and better heeled than my own, which has seven new productions a year. We have tried to get business sponsorship for the theatre in Stratford. Perhaps hon. Members remember seeing the comment in the article in The Stage by the Minister—
Private funding is the engine of arts expansion
That is where the Minister thinks the real money for the future is coming from. However, The Stage shortly afterwards said:
'We've been lumbered' say arts sponsors"—
because the businesses and companies that sponsor the arts realise that they will be left holding the baby, and that they will attract great odium if they withdraw the sponsorship, which they provided as top-up money, only to find that they are held responsible for the collapse of a particular arts institution. The future does not lie with business sponsorship, as the Minister implied in that article.
We face a depressing scenario in the arts, but one which is typical of the Prime Minister's philistinism and the unimaginative, shoddy, second-rate Government that run the country. It is typical of a Prime Minister who goes to see "The Mousetrap" and re-reads whodunits. Who has to read a whodunit, when she knew whodunit when she read it again? It is typical of a Prime Minister who is happier getting in and out of tanks than in and out of museums or theatre seats, and who seems to derive more pleasure from admiring new missiles than great works of art. What else can we expect from an ex-Spam hoarder from Grantham, presiding over the social and economic decline of our country?
Why are the Royal Shakespeare Company and the arts so important? I say to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who is now back in his place, that the arts are certainly not more important than homelessness, unemployment and the transport chaos that we have in this country, but the arts are as important as those areas of expenditure.
I have two reasons for saying that. First, an age is more likely to be judged by the standards and the excellence of its architecture, music, painting, sculpture and literature than by obsolete weapons of death and destruction. Involvement in the arts, either as a creator or a consumer, is one of the finest forms of human activity that we can encourage. I remind Conservative Members that there is very little crowd violence at the opera houses these days.
Secondly—this should appeal to the monetarists opposite—the economic significance of the arts is continually underestimated and undervalued. They have a £12 billion turnover; the industry employs some 450,000 people; it contributes £4 billion to the balance of payments. That is a record of economic achievement that should have everyone in the House applauding.
People do not come to this country to see office blocks, Third-world roads or crumbling transport infrastructure, or to learn how to control inflation or enjoy traffic jams. They come here to enjoy the enormously rich art legacy that we have inherited. The come for theatres, art galleries and museums. I remind Conservative Members that that legacy is as important as North sea oil, but unlike oil, it will not run out. However, it can be run down, and that is what is happening to the arts in this country today.
It is our responsibility to build on what we have, and to invest in the arts, because it is one of the finest forms of public expenditure investment that any Government can make.
The Minister made great play of the recent increase in subsidy for the arts. We told him that he has done better this year than before, and better than some other Ministers, and we praise him for that, but in 1990–91, arts expenditure will be one third of 1 per cent. of public expenditure, while defence expenditure will be 11·8 per cent. It is interesting that we should have one of the highest defence budgets in western Europe, and one of the smallest arts budgets.
The current events in eastern Europe provide previously undreamed-of opportunities for world peace and harmony. We must match those great events with bold, imaginative political leadership. We need the vision and confidence in Britain that will allow us to turn tanks into tractors, bullets into ballet and bombs into books. There is no such vision and confidence among the clapped-out second-raters on the Conservative Benches, but those qualities are present in abundance among Opposition Members.
The Government's time is almost finished: Labour is poised on the threshold of a golden future. The arts need a Labour victory, and they will soon get one.

Mr. Luce: Without a shadow of doubt, the debate has been both colourful and entertaining. I have been recommended for one or two things in my life, but never for a drama award, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for suggesting it.
I found myself buffeted between two extraordinary speeches—one by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). One condemned me for my almost evil approach to policy and to tonight's vote; the other stated that it was

disgraceful of me to increase taxpayers' support for the arts. I am beginning to think that perhaps I have got the balance about right.
Although the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) focused mainly on the Royal Shakespeare company in both the motion and the opening of his speech, this was a broad-ranging motion relating to every aspect of the arts. I welcomed that, although some hon. Members clearly thought otherwise.
As always, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made a colourful and enjoyable speech; nevertheless, when I came to assess the value of what he said, I found it very difficult. One strand was clear from the beginning—his contempt for the private sector's role in supporting the arts. He said at the outset that he despised it.
The Government's role, as I see it, is to underpin arts support with taxpayers' money—and we are maintaining that commitment with public funding for the next three years—but also to provide a climate for the expansion of the arts through the private sector. Spokesmen for the arts say repeatedly that the arts thrive on independence and freedom of expression. I believe that that should be encouraged, but success is possible only if the arts are not wholly dependent on the taxpayer and the ratepayer through central Government or local authorities. That is not to reject the importance of the role of taxpayer and ratepayer, but it highlights the important role that the private sector can play in sustaining the self-reliance and independence of the arts world.
The arts deserve to be congratulated on what they have achieved over the past five years. They have diversified their sources of funding and have sought to increase audiences through sheer professional management, sponsorship, patronage and increased contributions from individuals as well as corporations. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) for stressing the need for plurality of funding to secure that independence.
I must pick on the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch again. I always think that a person shows great weakness or paucity of argument if all that he can do is indulge in personal abuse. That is what the hon. Gentleman did. He abused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the chairman of the Arts Council. He made disgraceful remarks about Mr. Palumbo. The chairman of the Arts Council loves the arts. He is prepared to dedicate his time to leadership of the Arts Council. He commands the respect of those in the arts world. He has travelled all around the country. The hon. Gentleman should not have made such disgraceful remarks about the chairman of the Arts Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made a most reflective and interesting speech. He has a great knowledge and feeling for our heritage and the arts. He referred to the Barbican. It is interesting that the Barbican has not featured greatly in the debate. During the past eight years, however, it has made a great contribution to increasing support for the arts through the range of entertainment that it provides.
I understand that broad agreement has been reached between the Barbican and the Royal Shakespeare Company about arrangements. It is only right that we should acknowledge the Barbican's role, as well as that of the City of London, in supporting the arts in London, and


generally, directly and also indirectly. I take seriously what my hon. Friend said in his notable speech and I am grateful for what he said.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to a number of issues, but he spoke principally about the Royal Shakespeare Company. He also referred to support for the arts in London, in centres of excellence and in the regions. Having been to Inverness, I know that the Eden Court theatre, although it is not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, provides outstanding quality and does a great service to that part of Scotland.
There is already a formula for the disbursement of funds to both Wales and Scotland. It is known as the Goschen formula. It gives a reasonable deal to Scotland. I admire very much the Scottish Arts Council's support for the highest standards of excellence in the arts. It is always difficult to achieve the right balance between the centre and the regions, but I believe that the Arts Council has got it about right. It is for the Arts Council to decide how much money should be given to the flagships, including the Royal Shakespeare Company, and how much should be given to others.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) also made an important speech. I gladly congratulate Glasgow on its enormous contribution to the arts—its art collections, art galleries and the remarkable ballet and opera companies and orchestras that are based in Glasgow. I have great faith that next year will be a tremendous year for Glasgow and for this country.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South referred also to the fabric of our national museums and galleries. This is the first Government to give a clear commitment that during the 1990s we shall ensure that sufficient money is spent—principally by Her Majesty's Government, because it is taxpayers' money which has to be spent on the fabric—on ensuring that the fabric of these institutions is in good shape. If the private sector is prepared to play a role, I shall welcome it—as, I am sure, will the hon. Member for Paisley, South.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse') made an excellent speech. He drew attention to the importance of quality in the arts and to the royal charter of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Its charter emphasises the important balance which has to be struck between performances not just of Shakespeare but drama of all kinds.
Much of the focus has been on the Royal Shakespeare Company. As I said in my opening speech, it is a great centre of excellence and it should be given high priority. It is therefore right that the Arts Council decided to increase funding by 11 per cent. in the coming year so that its funding is more than £6 million, but equally, it is for the Arts Council to argue the case to me on behalf of all the arts, including the Royal Shakespeare Company, and for me then to discuss with my colleagues what overall resources should be available. With that in mind, there has been a £20 million increase in cash terms for the Arts Council for next year and a 22 per cent. increase for the next three years. That is a real indication of the Government's commitment to the arts.

Question put,  That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 272.

Division No. 86]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
George, Bruce


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Alton, David
Gordon, Mildred


Anderson, Donald
Gould, Bryan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Thomas


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hardy, Peter


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barron, Kevin
Haynes, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Beith, A. J.
Heffer, Eric S.


Bell, Stuart
Henderson, Doug


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Home Robertson, John


Blunkett, David
Hood, Jimmy


Boateng, Paul
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boyes, Roland
Howells, Geraint


Bradley, Keith
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Illsley, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Janner, Greville


Buckley, George J.
Johnston, Sir Russell


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Kirkwood, Archy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Lamond, James


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leighton, Ron


Clay, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Clelland, David
Livingstone, Ken


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Livsey, Richard


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
McAvoy, Thomas


Corbyn, Jeremy
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cox, Tom
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cryer, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Cummings, John
Maclennan, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McNamara, Kevin


Cunningham, Dr John
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Doran, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Douglas, Dick
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Faulds, Andrew
Morley, Elliot


Fearn, Ronald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Fraser, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fyfe, Maria
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Pendry, Tom






Pike, Peter L.
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Primarolo, Dawn
Steinberg, Gerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Straw, Jack


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Richardson, Jo
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robertson, George
Turner, Dennis


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Rogers, Allan
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, Jeff
Wareing, Robert N.


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Short, Clare
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mr. John Battle and Mr. John McFall.


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)



Soley, Clive





NOES


Adley, Robert
Day, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dunn, Bob


Amos, Alan
Durant, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Favell, Tony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Dame Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Beggs, Roy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Benyon, W.
Franks, Cecil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gorst, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Gregory, Conal


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Churchill, Mr
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayward, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Couchman, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)





Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Janman, Tim
Redwood, John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Kilfedder, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Richard


Knowles, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Madel, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maples, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Marland, Paul
Stokes, Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Summerson, Hugo


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mellor, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Sir Hal
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, lain
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trippier, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Sir Charles
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moss, Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mudd, David
Walden, George


Neale, Gerrard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Needham, Richard
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John


Neubert, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann






Wiggin, Jerry
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Younger, Rt Hon George


Winterton, Nicholas



Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the Government's outstanding record in supporting the Arts, which means that more people throughout the country are now enjoying the Arts at an unprecedented standard of excellence; congratulates the Government on increasing its funding of the Arts by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and by a further 24 per cent. over the next three years; welcomes the increased support of 31 per cent. to the national museums and galleries to restore their fabric and the continuing funding of the new British Library; reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining support for the Arts while supporting its approach of encouraging arts organisations to become more self-sufficient; acknowledges the important role of the Royal Shakespeare Company; and endorses the principle of arm's length funding whereby decisions about the funding of individual organisations are made by the Arts Council.

Clergy (Ordination)

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper——

Sir Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, which will last for only an hour and a half. I ask hon. Members to make brief speeches so that as many as possible may be called. As this is not a party political issue but one on which hon. Members on both sides of the House hold views, the Chair may not necessarily go from one side to the other of the Chamber, but it will seek to balance the debate.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of seeking to catch your eye, but I should like one piece of advice before the debate begins. Is it not normally the case that a matter on which the House has reached a decision is rarely brought back to the House within 12 months? If, for example, the Government lose a vote, they accept it and that is that. Why is it that in this case, we have to consider again a Measure on which we have already taken a decision less than 12 months ago?

Mr. Speaker: That decision was taken in the previous Session of Parliament. This is the new Session, so the motion is in order.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Clergy (Ordination) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament in the last Session.
I am sorry to have to trouble the House with the rather unusual re-run of a Church of England Measure that has already been debated once in the House. On that occasion, it failed to obtain approval. I feel a little like a nervous curate having to call the banns of marriage for the second time and inquiring whether anyone knows cause or just impediment why the motion of the House and the motion of the General Synod may not be joined together in harmony. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) ——

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose——

Mr. Alison: I must get on a little.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds jumped the gun even before the banns were called for the second time. An exceptional circumstance arose the last time that the Measure was considered, on 17 July 1989, in that, contrary to all expectations, we reached it only at 2.6 am and the vote was not taken until 3.35 am. That late hour was considered by many inside and outside the House not to do justice either to the great importance—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr.Greenway: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me go first, please. A great deal of private conversation is going on. This is an important measure.

Mr. Alison: I think that you will find that there is a series of mini-debates, Mr. Speaker, and I trust that they will emerge in a consensus at the end of the debate.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Alison: No, as I must get on a little. I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a minute.
That late hour was considered by many inside and outside the House not to do justice either to the great importance attached to the measure by the Church of England General Synod or to the sensitive personal cases involving a number of our constituents whose lives were and are profoundly affected by the measure's fate. Hence the decision taken late last year by the General Synod to ask the House of Commons in this new Session to reconsider the Measure and our earlier verdict on it at a more reasonable and propitious hour. The hour is certainly more reasonable than it was last year.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Alison: It remains to be seen whether the hour is more propitious.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Greenway: rose——

Mr. Alison: I give way to my hon. Friend who caught my eye first.

Mr. Speaker: I call Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Alison: It may simplify your problem, Mr. Speaker, if I cancel both offers to give way.
As a result of the substantial controversy and constituency correspondence that the Measure has generated—not least because of the hour at which it suffered defeat last July—right hon. and hon. Members of all parties are now reasonably familiar with the issues at stake, so I need not weary the House on this occasion with a long explanatory speech. I shall be brief, in the interests of allowing as many of my colleagues as possible to enter the debate. I hope, by leave of the House, to speak again for a few minutes at the end of our debate to deal with particular points or queries raised by right hon. and hon. Members, which should receive a response.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Alison: I want to get on further; I shall certainly give way later.
The issue to which the Measure addresses itself is quite narrow. It relates to the marital circumstances of men and women who decide that they wish to seek ordination as priests or deacons in the Church of England. Under the law as it stands, a previous divorce is no necessary bar to such individuals seeking ordination, but remarriage after divorce constitutes such a bar under certain circumstances. Thus, under existing canon law, there is an absolute bar against a candidate seeking ordination if he or she is married and has a previous spouse still living from an earlier marriage, or if the partner to whom he or she is currently married likewise has a previous partner from an earlier marriage still living.
That absolute bar reflects, for Christians at least, Christ's unequivocal teaching about marriage as a lifelong, permanent union, which only death can properly dissolve, and remarriage after divorce, although not after a partner's death, as adulterous if a previous partner is still living, although Christ also taught the possibility of grace and forgiveness.
I hasten to add that the Measure does not seek to question, abrogate or repudiate that fundamental Christian doctrinal position. Indeed, that fundamental position is rehearsed and reasserted as normative in the Measure, in its very first clause. Hon. Members who look at the clause will see that plainly.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend understand and accept that that very point is a bar for almost all of us? How can that bar apply to people who have been divorced, who seek to be remarried in church and who are prevented by the bar from doing so, yet, if the Measure goes through, it will not prevent a man or woman in due course from being ordained? That same individual, having been ordained, will have to enforce the very bar that the Measure seeks to remove.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend, for whom I have respect and affection, is misinformed. There is no statute law debarring divorced men and women from being married in the Church of England. Any clergyman who marries a divorced man or woman cannot be proceeded against by any Church disciplinary measure.
The much narrower point at issue in the Measure is whether provision should be made in and by the Church of England to allow occasional exceptions to the absolute bar in specially deserving cases. After long reflection, extending over several years, the General Synod decided by a substantial majority that provision should be made for such occasional exceptions, each case to be individually weighed and determined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York themselves, exclusively.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Alison: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am not giving way to her, so she had better save her breath for when she makes her speech.
It is to legislate for occasional dispensation only that the measure is brought before the House. Our own parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee has likewise by a majority endorsed the position of the Synod, as our report to the House makes clear. It is not difficult to cite cases in which the special dispensation of the archbishops might reasonably be exercised.
The most compelling case of which I am aware is of a mature candidate who decided to seek ordination after an active secular career. It is an actual, not a hypothetical, case. He and his wife have had a long and happy marriage, and have grown-up children. His wife was once briefly married in her teens; that marriage was never consummated. No full and proper marriage took place and the marriage could have been annulled. However, the parties involved decided that divorce rather than annulment was a quicker and less unsavoury experience in ending the marriage and the girl was divorced. As a result, the husband is debarred on a technicality, so to speak, from seeking ordination, to which he has a strong vocation. If the Measure is passed, it will enable special


dispensations to be granted to people in such cases. Other cases can and probably will be cited by other hon. Members during the debate.
I hope that no one will argue that it is improper for Parliament to consider these matters. Marriage in our society is of immense consequence and interest to Church and state alike. I repeat the figures that I cited last July. In the latest year for which figures are available, 1986, 348,000 registered marriages in England and Wales—well over half—were solemnised in religious ceremonies. Of those, one third were solemnised in Church of England ceremonies.
Constituents are deeply interested in these matters and in religious matters generally as they affect public policy. Churchgoing is still the most popular voluntary communal activity in Britain, far outstripping——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It will not be, the way things are going.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that her behaviour does not improve her chances of being called?

Mr. Alison: One has only to recall the interest taken during the last Parliament in Sunday trading and in the present Parliament in religious broadcasting, to make the point. The great majority of our population who identify with the Christian religion—probably about 80 per cent. according to surveys—but who are not active churchgoers tend to write to their Members of Parliament about religious matters to express their fears rather than to members of the General Synod.
Parliament rightly established the Church of England General Synod so that more time and specialised consideration could be given to matters by that body. But Parliament rightly reserved for itself the last word. Parliament represents a reasonable cross-section of religious interests, commitment and concern in our society.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Alison: No, I have nearly finished. I hope that my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. More than one hon. Member has tried to make this into a debate instead of a series of monologues. Is it right for my right hon. Friend to ignore interruptions or is his case so weak that it cannot——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that if an hon. Member does not wish to give way——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This is a monologue, not a debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member said that he is not giving way, so that is up to him.

Mr. Alison: That merely underlines the point that I was making—that passions run high in the House on matters of religious interest and that it is proper for Parliament to spend time on and occupy itself with such matters, which are of immense interest and concern to our constituent:;. To adapt an old saying, religion is too important to be left to the bishops and clergy—the professionals, so to speak, who dominate the General Synod.
The General Synod, clergy and laity alike, has given lengthy, responsible and anxious thought to this strictly limited new power of dispensation, as set out in the Measure. They have reached a clear decision by a substantial majority. Our Ecclesiastical Committee endorsed that majority view of the General Synod. It has acted as Parliament was intended to act. Therefore, I commend the Measure to the House.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I do not wish to detain the House for long, because many hon. Members wish to contribute to this important debate. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to reflect the views of many Anglicans, who are mystified at what the Church is seeking to achieve at present. Their voice is not reflected sufficiently in the Synod, and they look to the Church to provide them with a lead in moral and other matters, but so often they are sadly disappointed.
The measure emanates from the 1978 Lichfield report entitled "Marriage and the Church's Task", the main recommendations of which failed to be accepted, as the House will recall. It has been suggested that the Commons should not thwart the wishes of the Synod, a view that I find extraordinary bearing in mind the writ that has been served questioning the legality of the General Synod's vote. In some people's minds, this may not be the right moment for Parliament to take on the established Church and to give it a boot up the backside, but I genuinely believe that it is the right moment to make a stand against the liberal trends on matters of morality, and to conclude that to allow the ordination of men who have been divorced and have then remarried makes a mockery of the Church's teaching.
The Lichfield report stated:
it seems clear that Jesus made an uncompromising statement about divorce: a man or a woman who remarries after divorce commits adultery.
Of course we understand the pressures of modern day life on families and on marriage. Of course we understand the dilemma faced by individuals who feel that they have been called by God to serve in this very particular way. However, such people could find many other ways in which they could serve God and their fellow man, and they should seek out those alternative ways.
The House must realise that tonight we are being asked to bend the rules to enable a few—240 at present——

Mr. Robert Hayward: rose——

Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman will have his say in a few moments.
We are being asked to bend the rules to allow 240 people to become priests. These are not necessarily hard cases—there are very few hard cases—and we in the House know only too well that good legislation is never introduced for hard cases. We must take the broader view and decide what is in the best interests of the Church as a whole and of the people of this country as a whole, and not of those hard cases.

Mr. Hayward: Does not the church also teach us to forgive, as well as moral certainty?

Mrs. Winterton: I have never suggested that this should not be about forgiveness. One can forgive, but one must remember that, when someone has married, he has stood before an altar, in his right mind, has decided to take the other person on and has said that the marriage should last "until death us do part". If that is meaningless, I suggest that those who seek to go into the priesthood are forgetting one of the basic tenets of their faith, which would be a great mistake. This is not about forgiveness

—of course people forgive—but about something more fundamental. As I have asked, we are being asked to bend those rules.
I do so hope that we shall reject the Measure because we must not dilute even further the influence and the example of the Church at a time when the country is longing for a strong moral lead. I beg the House to overthrow the Measure once again.

Mr. Tony Benn: I invite the House to support the Measure, for three reasons. The first is that the Church wants it. Secondly, the Church of England, being a state-controlled Church, can at present achieve what it wants only if the House votes for it. Thirdly, in so far as any individual can assess it, the Measure removes the anomaly whereby one can be a priest, be divorced, remarry and continue to be a priest. I also support the Measure because it affects certain people who have a vocation which it is not for the House to deny.
I am totally unimpressed by the arguments used against the Measure, including the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). The House is made up of many faiths and there is no requirement, as once there was, to be an Anglican in order to be elected to the House. The house has no moral authority or mandate to set its judgment above that of the Synod. I challenge any hon. Members to claim that they gave a pledge, whether in a party manifesto or in an election address, that on Church Measures they would vote against those which they did not like. If any hon. Members could assure me that they had notified their constituents that they had such a mandate, they might be in a special position, but I do not believe that to be the case.
The argument about constitutional rights is not a valid one. The Crown has the constitutional right to reject all our legislation but does not exercise it. The Crown has the right to dismiss the Prime Minister at any time without question, but it does not exercise it. Similarly, the Crown has the right to dissolve Parliament at any time, but it does not exercise that right. The argument about constitutional rights should not carry any weight in the House.
The arguments used against the Measure rest on double standards, for who liberalised the divorce laws but Parliament? Parliament has liberalised those laws regularly. Hon. Members can be divorced. Sir Anthony Eden was divorced when he became Prime Minister yet under our State Church. as a divorced man he had the power to appoint bishops. It is nonsense that the House should set its judgment on this matter above that of the Synod.
The debate brings into sharp focus the question of Church-state relations. I believe that one of the motives of those who wish to overthrow the Measure is that Church pronouncements on peace, poverty and social justice have greatly angered some Conservative Members. They do not like it, but without being offensive, I will not take lectures on moral standards from those who have enacted legislation which has caused so much social injustice.
I was brought up on the Old Testament, on the conflict between the kings who exercised the power and the prophets who preached righteousness. The story in the Old Testament would have been different if the kings had appointed the prophets. But I do not have much time for churchmen who protect the establishment.
I attended the coronation service and I have brought the order of service with me. I remember the occasion well—2 June 1953. One of the few pledges that the Queen gave to the Archbishop of Canterbury was the following:
Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen: All this I promise to do.
The bishops are part of a privileged group in our society. They sit in the House of Lords and they have a special status. They insist on maintaining the blasphemy laws, which has an element of contemporary importance.For one reason why the Muslims are angry is that they are not protected by those laws, which the bishops insist should protect the Church of England.
This is a time for a fresh look, though I know that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who moved the Measure, does not agree with my reasons for supporting it. A few weeks ago the Soviet Parliament repealed article 6 of its constitution. Article 6 established Marxism-Leninism as the only political faith in Russia. The Russians have disestablished Marxism-Leninism. In this country, there are Protestants, Nonconformists, Catholics, Hindus and Muslims, yet we are told, on the advice of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, that we must preserve Parliament's power to control one church.
Tonight's vote will be a watershed. It is a crowded House. The early moments of the debate did not give me the idea that the House was an appropriate body to deal with such a matter. I did not think that the behaviour of some hon. Members confirmed our right to exercise the powers which, by statute, we have. If we accept the Measure, we are accepting the Church's right to be free. If we reject the Measure, the Church will demand its freedom.
There is no doubt that if Parliament rejects the Measure for a second time, the pressure in the Church of England for disestablishment will grow. I happen to share that wish, but I do not want to see it brought about by denying justice to people whom the Church, in its wisdom, considers eligible for ordination. Therefore, whichever way the vote goes will be a step towards disestablishment—de facto if we accept the Measure, de jure if we reject it.
I shall conclude because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. State control of religion is a feudal survival. The sooner we end it, and end the farce of debates such as this, the better it will be for the Church of England and for the House.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I do not think that we help our case on either side by besmirching the motives of those who argue against us. This is an issue about which people feel strongly. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has shown how strongly he feels about it. He is entitled to his view and has been honest about it. He is not an Anglican, but he has every right to speak in this assembly on these issues, because that is the nature of an established Church.
The problem with this issue is that it is not as simple as it has been made out to be. The Church of England sought to reform all its divorce laws. It brought forward a major motion. In order to pass it, it needed a two-thirds majority. It could not get that majority because many people believed that, in a world where divorce was becoming a major problem and in a nation with the highest divorce rate in the European Community, the Church should continue to uphold the sanctity of marriage and the notion of the lifelong union.
The bishops sought to find an answer, and discovered that they could not. Therefore, they withdrew from the Synod the general proposition and left us with this small rump bit. Had they said to the Synod, "Because this is so essential a matter and one that people feel so strongly about, we are not prepared to take the whole issue through; nevertheless on this issue, we will have the two-thirds majority which is necessary for so major a change," many of us would have been much happier.
However, instead of doing that, the bishops said that there would be no two-thirds majority. We understand why, because in the House of Laity—this House has a particular concern for that House—they have never managed to get a two-thirds majority. They have had a substantial majority, but not the majority which, under the generally understood nature of the Church of England, they needed to make so substantial a change.
It is a substantial change, because it means that we shall ordain men who, from the beginning of their ministry, will be unable to turn to young couples coming for advice on marriage and say to them, "The Church stands by our Lord's direct command to uphold marriage as a lifelong union. Therefore, under the rules that most bishops insist upon, you cannot be remarried in church, because you cannot remake the vows that you originally made."

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Gummer: No, I want to be brief. I think that my hon. Friend will find that I answer him in due course.
That is what the Church said——

Mr. Roger Stott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: This is a matter of considerable pain and importance to many, and it would be helpful if all hon. Members were allowed to develop their arguments to see what the answer is.

Mr. Stott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: The priest who has to advise people——

Mr. Stott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way to someone who has been remarried in church?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The tight hon. Gentleman said that he is not giving way.

Mr. Gummer: The priest will have to say that he has not been able to carry that out, and in that sense he is not the person who stands for the highest that the Church can ask for.

Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way. Many people wish to speak and I have been asked to keep my remarks short.
The issue is surely whether the Church has the right to say of those who stand at the altar in the place of Jesus that they should set an example of a kind that may not be asked of other people. I think that it has. In those circumstances, other Churches say that a man may not marry at all. They ask for celibacy generally. The Orthodox Church says that one may marry but not divorce or remarry after divorce. The Church of England is merely saying, as it has always said, that priests may divorce but may not remarry, because that is to take the vow a second time.
If the Church had sought to recast the whole of its marriage arrangements and deal with the issue of annulment to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) refers, not just for priests but for all the other people who, because the Church of England has no annulment procedure, are also forced into a divorce, many of us would have gone along with the change that was necessary. But we are not faced with such a proposal. We are faced with a special proposal about the very people of whom one should ask a higher standard than one asks of others.
What kind of signal does that give to the rest of the community? What will it mean if, for the first time, the Church of England decides to ordain not one or two difficult cases, but—as we know from the figures that have been thrashed out after a great deal of trouble, considerable pressure and several months of discussion, the Ecclesiastical Committee, having been given the figure of two or three a year—240 in the first year? There is a lot behind that, and I agree that would not be a typical year, but there is no doubt that many will be concerned, so that is a different situation from that which was presented to the Synod.
The issue is surely also that the Church of England needs to look at its marriage and divorce legislation, for we have a much tougher rule than in any other Church in Christendom if it is kept. But, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend, it is often not kept. The Church must face that issue.
Our problem tonight is that the Church has been denied the opportunity to face that issue. It has been given a bit of a measure. That bit has been got through without a two-thirds majority, and the House is now supposed to support what has been an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Church.
It is no good saying that this is a matter for the Church, and we must leave it to the Church. If we have an established Church—I am not one of those who believe it to be essential—it is the duty the House to stand up for those who have been disfranchised by the mechanisms of the Church.
I find it surprising that the motion should be brought before the House at a time when there is a court case outstanding against the principle of the way in which the Measure was put through. I know that it is in technical terms possible for the House to approve it, but I thought that the Church would have stayed its hand and waited a little, until that case had been heard. I hope that there is no truth in the report that, if the case is lost, the Church will seek costs from the very ordinary Anglican lay people who took the matter to court. If that is true, the Church ought to think again, because it was right to take that case to court.
There may be another Session for us, but there is not another session for the Synod. There are synodical elections towards the end of this year. Why was the Church not prepared to leave the matter to be voted upon again by a new Synod? Even those of us who may not be entirely convinced by the argument that an example ought to be set, and that the Church should stand for something at a time when marriage is undergoing so much pressure, may we ask why the Church did not, in Christian charity, hold back the Measure to be voted upon again after the synodical election, when the case could have been put to its electorate? Why did not the Church allow the High Court case to be heard before bringing the matter before this House?
My last point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Opposition Members ought to accept that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about this matter, and have been consistent in their views.
It is often said that the argument is one of forgiveness. One of the problems in Britain is how we should support the two out of three families who do stay together and who regard marriage as a lifelong commitment. How do we help them in those difficult circumstances? We can do so only by upholding the highest standards and by setting before them what Jesus demanded and what the Gospel demands. Once the Church of England moves from the Gospel demands, many of us will ask in whose name the Church speaks at all.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): No right hon. or hon. Member who has met or who has been written to by a number of the people whom the motion most closely concerns can fail to approach the matter partly through those individuals. That raises for any Christian the fundamental question of whether we really believe that the power of the Holy Spirit is limited. Sometimes, I wonder whether that doubt is the sin against the Holy Spirit that none of us has ever had explained.
Grace is infinite, and the history of the Christian Church is the history of ordinary sinners redeemed by grace and securing successes beyond that which anyone could normally have expected of them. It is worth reminding ourselves that St. Peter built the Church having denied Our Lord on oath no fewer than three times. As we all know, St. Paul was instrumental in causing the death of a number of Christians before he played his part in building the Church.
If someone, whether or not he is a Christian, fails in a marriage, are we to say that at no stage in his subsequent life is the Holy Spirit able to redeem him sufficiently to allow him to become a priest or a deacon? We know that the efficacy of the sacrament is not affected by the purity of its administrator. We know also that it is more likely that a couple will seek to be married by a priest who has been divorced while an incumbent than by one of the tiny handful of people who may get through an elaborate process, having been divorced goodness knows how many years ago.
Yet there is, as we can see, an impressive balance of right hon. and hon. Members lined up against the Measure. One has to ask why. Is it because they want to send the message to the Church of England that they do not trust the archbishops? If so, this is a wholly inappropriate vehicle to carry that message. Why pick on


a tiny handful of committed Christians, who want the chance to test their vocation only at the humblest level of the priesthood, to attack the pinnacle of the hierarchy? Is it because they want to send out a message about the inviolable sanctity of marriage? This is a grossly inadequate vehicle to carry that huge burden. To use a group of Christians who will, by definition, be more sharply tested in their vocation and more centred on the vital importance of chaste and holy marriage than anyone else I can imagine, as a candle to light the fire of a national revival of enduring marriage, is as cruel as it is inappropriate.
I believe that if hon. Members turn down the Measure we shall send to the Church and to the country beyond the message that we doubt the redemptive power of the Holy Spirit. We shall send the message that we distrust the judgment of the archbishops whom the secular authority has placed at the helm of the Church of England and that we are happy to ride roughshod over the vocation of a handful of Christians to gratify our prejudices or to feed our human fears. Such instrumentality—the subordination of individuals to the larger purpose—is precisely the opposite of the Gospel and the sort of thinking that our Lord came to overturn.

Ms. Jo Richardson: The right hon, Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred to our previous debate, when there were fewer hon. Members present. That debate resulted in a very close vote, which gave no satisfaction to the winners or the losers. I think that it was recognised immediately that we should have to re-run the whole event. On that occasion, 14·7 per cent of hon. Members voted in the middle of the night, and the Measure was defeated by a mere six votes.
I make no criticism—why should I?—of the hon. Members who did not stay for the debate. Doubtless, many of them thought that sleep was more important, and perhaps their families thought that it was more important that they should be at home with them. We often have debates at what some hon. Members consider to be unreasonable hours. I sometimes think that we should consider that aspect of our debates, and decide whether our procedures should be changed so that we all have the opportunity to come to a sensible conclusion, without being too tired and mugged by the procedure. Some absentees might have been motivated by the fact that they felt that the issue was not one upon which parliamentarians should vote at all. I voted for the Measure. I am one of those hon. Members who takes the view that it is not a matter upon which Parliament should make a decision, but I shall come to that point in a moment.
I am glad, having excused in my mind the absentees, that so many hon. Members have turned up tonight and decided to stay, even at this slightly earlier hour, to listen and to vote. I have been sitting here trying to calculate who will vote on which side, and it is not easy to judge from hon. Members' faces.
I was privileged to take part in the debate in July. I guess that I was one of the few contributors on that occasion, and probably one of the few on this occasion who is not a member of the Church of England.
I come from a pretty religious background, although hon. Members might not think it: my father was a Methodist preacher, my mother a Congregationalist, and

I turned out to be an agnostic. Despite my feelings, I take an interest in what is happening, and I strongly believe that matters such as this should be left to the parliament of the Church of England. A lot of what has been said tonight has been said in language that may not be comprehensible to people outside, some of whom may be in the Public Gallery tonight. The Measure belongs to the General Synod, and I do not think that we should make a decision contrary to the decision that it has already made; indeed, I do not think that we should make a decision of any kind.
Despite what the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said earlier, I believe that the Synod has agonised over the Measure. It has come to a conclusion—albeit not by a two-thirds majority—and I think that we have a duty to pass the Measure too, although on another occasion we may be able to discuss the possibility of separating Church and State.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: My hon. Friend said at first that we should not make a decision; now she says that we should. I agree with her that it should not be the business of the House of Commons to make that decision, but now that it is our business I feel that we have a responsibility. I think that we should support the majority on the Synod, although it was not a two-thirds majority. I say that as an Anglo-Catholic who has been married since 15 December 1945, and who believes strongly in the marriage concept, but recognises on a Christian basis that some people may not be as happily married as I am.

Ms. Richardson: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should make a decision tonight, but I do not think that we should have to: I think that we should think about the matter again on another occasion.
The people who considered this Measure for so many months reached their decision on the basis of deep religious feeling, and it is our job tonight to underwrite and support their decision. I know that many hon. Members believe that marriages are made in heaven, and that everyone who is married should remain married to his or her partner until death do them part. That is fine, but—I hate to say this, and I hope that I do not sound patronising—that suggests that they do not live in the real world. In the real world divorces take place, and for very good reasons. Some of the remarks that have been made suggest that people who divorce do so for not very serious reasons, but if people have decided to divorce we must respect that, and I do not think that they should be penalised as they would be if we voted against the Measure.
After all, there are only 240 candidates who would qualify for consideration if the Measure were passed, and not all are likely to get through. The Church of England has said that if we pass the Measure, the candidates will be scrutinised by means of the most difficult and obstacle-ridden procedure to ensure that they are fit to be ordained. We are considering only 240 people out of 10,000.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Many hon. Members are very perplexed. The Church of England now says that we can break one of God's tenets—that a marriage should be indissoluble. However, whenever Sunday trading is advocated, every vicar in creation writes to us stating that Sunday must remain a holy day. What matters are holy? Is


marriage holy? Are Sundays holy? Is Easter holy? What is holy? If we break one tenet, why should not we break them all?

Ms. Richardson: Perhaps some people break them all. However, I do not intend to follow that line of argument.
Many hon. Members and people throughout the country believe that marriage should be indissoluble. I understand their point of view. However, that is not possible in the real world for every couple, and we have to make provision for those people. I am not referring to the much-publicised cases that appear in the tabloid press—married people jumping into bed with other partners. I do not think that they, or the press that exploits their stories, are typical—[Interruption.] We are fed on a constant diet—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms. Richardson: Most couples divorce because life together has become intolerable. I defy any hon. Member to deny that he or she has been touched to the heart by such cases. Hon. Members must therefore be aware of what happens to a number of people.
Hon. Members may know of my deep concern for victims of domestic violence. Wife beaters—those who verbally, physically or sexually abuse their partner—are rife in our society, and always have been. A ten-minute Bill on rape within marriage is to be introduced tomorrow by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), which I hope the House will approve. Even the Home Office is now taking that seriously. If the victim of domestic violence finally manages to divorce her violent husband and subsequently remarries, why should the second husband be penalised for his understanding, care and love for someone who has been so cruelly treated?
In the previous debate on the subject my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked me how we could ensure—[Interruption.]—that the wife beater was not ordained. I said then that the procedure for ordination would be very strict. I cannot imagine that such a person would be ordained. [Interruption.] Perhaps I—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). I am sure that she is nearing the end of her speech.

Ms. Richardson: It would be lovely if we lived in an ideal world in which marriages were real partnerships, where the husband accepted his responsibilities to his wife and family, with the wife—who usually has to undertake most of the family responsibilities—having a life of her own, with financial independence to exercise her rights within the marriage.
In the 1990s, more women will be required in the work force. More women today are mature students who are seeking to educate themselves and expand their mind. That is a good thing and some Conservative Members should take note of it. However, that may well cause women to re-evaluate their marriages, their families and their relationships. Some of their earlier mistakes may throw them into deeper and more abiding relationships. Why should the aspirations of those women or the men whom they have married be less important to a partnership than those who feel that marriage is indissoluble? I do not think

that that is what the meeting together of two people is all about and I hope that the House will listen closely to the debate and vote in favour of the Measure.

Mr. Frank Field: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), who presented important arguments in her usual graceful manner. If I disagree with her, I do so for the same reasons as last time, which have nothing to do with the power of the arguments that she put forward. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) also spoke with great feeling. There is considerable feeling on all sides of the House running just below the surface of the debate.
Before making one substantive point to ask Members not to approve the Measure before the House tonight, I wish to comment on one issue which has not emerged in the debate. Many people outside consider tonight's debate a trial run for the Measure which will allow the Church to ordain women and which will be supported by substantial majorities in all parts of the House. No one must think that tonight's vote is any guide to that Measure.
This limited Measure has, however, turned into a partial debate on disestablishment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) feels passionately about that issue, although I find it strange that he should advocate privatisation of this country's first nationalised industry and handing over rights possessed by the state to a sect.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I am a member of the Church in Wales, which is disestablished but not privatised.

Mr. Field: I hope for the hon. Gentleman's sake that he will depend on more than that argument when he faces the electorate.
The second argument that has been advanced is that tonight we have a chance to iron out inconsistencies in everyday life.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether our Lord said that the Church had to be part of a national state? Where and when was that written in the scriptures?

Mr. Field: Our Lord did not directly publish "Faith in the City", but despite that it was a jolly good report, which was attacked by Conservative Members, and so tradition develops.
I am anxious to move on because the argument about inconsistencies has been presented. At present, if a practising priest decides to divorce he can continue to be a priest and his freehold rights will not be touched, but a person who decides to get divorced before being ordained will face a bar. We have to decide whether life is about ironing out inconsistencies or whether the important things in life cannot easily be fitted into neat categories.
As I listened to that, I thought of the argument that Aneurin Bevan made as he faced Neville Chamberlain. Having listened to the then Prime Minister, he said, in effect, "Listening to the Prime Minister is like a trip round Woolworth's—everything in its place and nothing over sixpence." Many things in life do not fit into neat little boxes. Sometimes they spill over. In this case we have to make a judgment as to whether it is a matter of neat categorisation or something more.

Mr. Nelson: I wish to raise with the hon. Gentleman a matter of personal perplexity to me. It may indeed be ignorance which leads me to intervene. The hon. Gentleman spoke of circumstances in which a person sought ordination, having previously been divorced. Will he confirm that there are circumstances, under the law passed by this House, in which a man can be divorced through no wish of his own? After a five-year period of separation, divorce may be imposed on him, even though it may be the last thing that he desires. Yet as a result of that, that law and this House, paradoxically, imposes a law on him saying that he is barred from ordination. Where is the equity?

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The bar comes if he remarries after that divorce, not by the divorce itself.

Mr. Nelson: No.

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman may say no, but he asked a specific question and I answered it.
I am anxious to get to the substantive point of my speech, which is that we must balance the argument, for it is on that balance—not on the high theological points that have been adduced by some hon. Members who oppose the Measure and who will later be in the Lobby with me—that we must make a decision.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) asked whether the debate was about forgiveness. As a collection of individuals, we should thank God that forgiveness is not dependent on any Act of Parliament. Whatever we decide tonight will make no difference to that fundamental issue, but it will make a difference to the conduct of the established Church.
As those themes have occurred in the debate, I wish to explain why, on balance, I shall vote against the Measure and ask my hon. Friends to support me. I do so not for theological reasons but for arguments about citizenship. We are being asked by the Church today to create two categories of citizenship. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said that some individuals could be divorced and remarried in Church.

Mr. Stott: As I was.

Mr. Field: As my hon. Friend was. Some people know how to move around and how t work the system——

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Stott: I rest my case.

Mr. Field: My hon. Friend may rest his case, but there are people who go to their local priest, who has a strict policy on the matter and refuses, and those people will accept the position. There will be others who know that they can move around and find a priest to perform the sacrament for them. That was the distinction that I was making. Under the existing law, some people will be divorced and remarried.
Today, however, we are being asked to approve a Measure which says that there shall be a privileged group of people who will be divorced and remarried, or who may have married a divorcee, and they can be ordained. But the vast majority of English men and women will be denied that right—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is the line that most parish priests take. It stems from the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), that that is not the main issue that we are

considering tonight. We are considering a substantive amendment. The main Measure that the Synod considered was the right of ordinary English men and women who are divorced to remarry in the Church. It refused to pass that measure, but says that it will ordain a category of people—a privileged group—who have divorced and remarried.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked why we are involved. We are involved because we are deciding that rights of citizenship should not be extended to ordinary people and that rules should apply to a special group—priests—but not to ordinary people. So long as such legislation is put forward in this place, I hope that the House will reject it, but not for some of the reasons that we have heard about it being a move one way or another to disestablishment.
Whether we think that the Measure is only about ironing out inconsistencies, or whether we think that it is a test of the welcome which I hope that the House will give the Measure for the ordination of women in the Church of England, it is about the fundamental rights of English men and women to be remarried in church. The Synod refused to extend that right to the many, but today we are being asked to extend it to the privileged few. For those reasons, I hope that we shall reject the Measure.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I have two short points to offer the House on what I consider to be a difficult issue. The first is based on the concept of fairness and proportionality in law, and the second I venture, rather rashly, to base on theology.
My first point is a plea for the principle that the consequences of any infringement should be influenced by the circumstances in which it occurs. We have been reminded by my right hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner and by other hon. Members that a priest is not compelled to give up his benefits, let alone his orders, if he remarries within the lifetime of his former wife. I draw attention to that fact not to make the plea suggested by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who made a most impressive speech, but to get rid of any inconsistency. My plea is that we should allow the law of the Church to take account of the circumstances in which an undoubted infringement of the Church's code has taken place.
It is true that a clergyman does not have to give up his benefits or orders because he remarried after divorce, but the disciplinary legislation and machinery of the Church may remove him if the circumstances of his conduct justify it. The circumstances are taken into account when the Church decides what shall happen to a clergyman, whereas they are not when someone who has divorced and remarried, regardless of how long ago or of the fact that at the time he may not have been a Christian, wishes to be ordained. That absolute bar on his ordination leads me to support the Measure—one of the advantages of speaking later in the debate is that one can cut one's remarks—but that contrast has already been made.
I should like to establish my credentials with those such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), next to whom I am delighted to be sitting, and against whose views I speak. I stand by the doctrine that, for a Christian, remarriage when his former wife is


alive is adulterous and therefore a sin, but I hope to see that doctrine tempered by recognition of the need for a careful examination of the circumstances of each case.
Equally, I very much understand those who stand against what they see as a steady slide in moral conduct, in theology, in the production standards of a factory or in anything else. Some, with justice, perceive a slide. I stand with them against that, but that does not justify turning down the Measure tonight.
We should address ourselves to whether this absolute and unqualified bar is an unfair and disproportionate sanction to impose on somebody who may fall into the category—I agree that it is extreme, but one can visualise many gradations—that he may, perhaps a long time ago, have divorced and remarried and now wishes to be ordained. It is an unfair and disproportionate sanction, which is inherently wrong. It does not allow the consequences of an undoubted infringement to be varied and tempered by the circumstances.
I understand those who take their stand on the sanctity of marriage and on the concept that it is for life. I share those views. I do no doubt that those who oppose the Measure believe that it is necessary to do so by reason of their loyalty to that concept. However, I hope that I shall not offend any of them if I suggest that they may, in their opposition, be giving rather less force than they should to two essential concepts, as I understand them, of the Christian faith. The first is forgiveness, and the second is the supernatural power of God.
It is rash to suppose that it is so serious a sin to remarry after divorce in the circumstances with which we are concerned that it cannot be conceived that God might wish subsequently to call such a man to serve him as a priest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or woman."] Perhaps a woman in future, but let us not enlarge the debate.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

The Attorney-General: No, as I am anxious to finish quickly.

Miss Nicholson: It affects women deacons.

The Attorney-General: I understand that.
If one is to oppose the Measure, it is necessary to argue that it is inconceivable that God should wish to call a man to become a priest in those circumstances. I do not believe that it is inconceivable. It is argued that to pass the Measure will send out a thoroughly bad signal, and the implication of that argument is that that must be to infringe, and to go against, the will of God. I do not believe that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has already reminded us of the influence of St. Paul. It hardly need to be said that St. Paul persecuted and murdered Christians on a grand scale, yet he was subsequently employed as an apostle. It is then said, "It is inconceivable that anybody could teach persuasively the lifelong purpose and nature of marriage if he himself had remarried in those circumstances." How come? St. Paul had little difficulty in preaching with great sincerity the wrongness of the offences that he, so memorably, had committed himself.
My conclusion is that we should approach the debate not with a view to ironing out inconsistencies or deciding whether we shall be standing up for marriage, but with a view to ensuring that the law of the Church of England is fair and proportionate, and remembering that the Measure will take account of circumstances and that it will be only the most exceptional circumstances that one archbishop or the other will consider sufficient to warrant a departure from what will remain the general rule and principle. That is central to the Measure and justifies it for me. That is why I shall vote for it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: When the Attorney-General was speaking as a Back-Bench Member, I went through a great temptation to follow him on the matter of sinning through adultery. In this country, there is an enormous amount of saying one thing and doing another.
I was reminded that when I first did interviews with an armed detective sitting alongside me, a chap walked in at Holbeck in Leeds, and said to me, "Do you believe in the sanctity of marriage?" I said, "Yes," and he went straight out. The policemen said, "Do you believe that, sir?" I said, "Yes, for myself." He said, "Thank God for that."
There is a great deal in the debate that should not concern us as Members of Parliament. When I hear theology being talked, it is not for me and it is not for Members in general. I shall vote for the Measure, although as a Nonconformist I have no reason in faith to participate. That is why I was not here last time.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) reinforced my feelings when he raised ecclesiastical points. I simply tell him—and I do not say it with nastiness—that when he goes round the country talking as a Member of Parliament about ecclesiastical points, I feel irritated. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who talked about citizenship. That is a matter for him. It is not a matter for me as a Nonconformist.
The debate is far wider than the Measure before us. Lose or win, however we all feel, it is one more little movement along the road to disestablishment. When I was Home Secretary, I had to go on an occasional Thursday to see Her Majesty when she created bishops. I read out the oath. I did that as a Nonconformist, but I went along with it. Given the decline in churchgoing, it is no longer relevant. The information on social trends published a few days ago shows what is happening. In those statistics we see that many young people live together but are not married: they are mainly middle class, but I make no point about that. Why are we talking in this lay Chamber about morality, and ecclesiastical morality, in the face of that information?
It is time we disestablished the Church of England. The Church in Wales is much better for being disestablished. The former Church of England in Northern Ireland, now the Church of Ireland, is much the better for being free of political control. If it means that we have to alter the composition of the House of Lords and that the spiritual bishops are no longer there, so be it. If it means that the cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and others are there instead, so much the better.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will return to the Measure that we are discussing.

Mr. Rees: The Measure is pushing us along that road. We will vote one way or the other, but it is not our business. 'That is why I was not here last time. I wish I were not here now. If the House is talking about saving marriages, the quicker I get home, the better.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: We have the right to debate the matter; we also have the right to represent our constituents' fears and concerns. There is a feeling of despair among many lay people. I listened with tremendous sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), but the Church of England has gone wrong. It no longer provides the guidance that ordinary people expect. I give, as one example, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. What is the Church's view on that Bill? I do not know whether it knows what its view is, but it has not told me. I have had many letters from various institutions on the Bill but I have not heard a squeak from the Church of England.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Summerson: I shall not give way.
If the Church trod the path laid down for it nearly 2,000 years ago and preached the timeless gospel of Christ, I should support the Measure that it has introduced today, because I would have trust and confidence that what the Church was doing was right. But I do not. The Church's values today are those of contemporaneous, secular society. I have lost my trust in the Church. I do not believe that its motives are correct, and I believe that the Measure should be rejected.

Mr. Simon Hughes: When the Ecclesiastical Committee first set out on its deliberations two years ago, I presumed—as, I admit, did some of my colleagues on the Committee—that when the Measure came to be voted on, I should vote against it. However, I did not vote against it the last time that it was debated and I shall not vote against it tonight.
The reasons why I shall not vote against the Measure, although various, can be summarised relatively briefly. The Church's teaching on marriage is clear. The Church has specific teaching that the leaders of the Church should set a good example and according to Timothy, should take only one wife. There is clear teaching. However, as the Attorney-General and others have clearly said, the Church has equally preached that, for every individual without exception, there is available forgiveness. If we defeat the Measure, one of the effects would be to deny the sacrament of forgiveness to people who are ordained, while the Church offers, and the holy spirit gives, forgiveness to lay members of the Church.
The Ecclesiastical Committee took a year, spent six sessions, considered evidence and had a joint meeting with the legislative committee of the General Synod before coming to the decision that the measure was expedient. I respect the views of those who have expressed an alternative view this evening. It is clear that, theologically, the matter is difficult, but we should take heed of the

advice that we have been given by the people who guide us on matters of theology in the Church. They have deliberated and decided by a substantial majority that the matter does not offend against the theology of the Christian Church or against the teachings of Christ.
In all three Houses there was a majority. It does not matter what our views are on disestablishment. As an Anglican who is in favour of disestablishment, I too wish that we did not have to do this job. However, we must do our job tonight with the best advice available.
The House could reject the Measure, as it did before, but uniquely, the Church is entitled to send it back when it will. When the Church reconsidered the decision of the House last July, it resolved, by a majority of more than two thirds, that the Measure should come back to the House and should be supported by the Church.
As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said, the measure applies not only to men but to women. If the Measure is accepted, many women who are waiting to be ordained deacons will be allowed to be ordained, just as the men affected will he allowed to be ordained priests. It would be anomalous if the measure were not accepted. By definition, some people would be prevented from being ordained by faults that were not of their commission and sins not of their making. Some would be prevented by technicalities. Others might be eligible despite the fact that they might have lived with one, two or more partners—just because they had never got married—and some would be prevented because they married somebody who, many years past, had once been divorced. That person would be debarred although he may never have been divorced himself.
By the present law, we can allow people to be ordained who have been convicted of murder. Are we to deny that to those whose marriage has failed? Perhaps most importantly, is the Church to say that people who have been married and divorced, who were remarried when they were not Christians, but who became Christians later, like Paul and many other cases in the history of the Church, should then be prevented from starting again, as the Church teaches is available?
I advise the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the rule of the Church that allows priests to refuse requests for marriage is not a parallel, and it is therefore not a good precedent. The Church allows that. It will continue to have that provision, and it is up to the individual priest. The fact that someone may find a priest who is willing to remarry that person in church—as the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) made clear has happened to him—is not an argument for rejecting the Measure.
Above all, the debate is about whether forgiveness can override the strict interpretation of the law, but it is also about whether this House will leave to the pastors and spiritual leaders of the Church the right to decide that, in an individual case, after close examination, somebody should be allowed to be ordained in spite of what had gone before. If it is a choice between this House barring everybody in all circumstances from being ordained or of leaving it to the Church, I think that we should leave it to the Church.

Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, I should like to make two concluding points—one a very narrow point and the other rather broader. On the narrow point, in his impressive speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred to the fact that he thought that the General Synod should have had a two-thirds majority vote on the critical point. He drew attention to the fact that a law suit is now in process outside the House to try to decide whether a two-thirds majority should have been applied.
My right hon. Friend complained about costs in the law suit. I should look at that point carefully and, without commitment, shall do everything that I can to help his side. The Church of England has said that, if the law suit is won by the plaintiffs—his side—it will unequivocally take the canon which will implement the Measure back to the Synod and submit it to the two-thirds majority procedure. There is therefore still a chance for my right hon. Friend's wish to be fulfilled.
My right hon. Friend was eloquent in urging the vital necessity of upholding the Christian view of marriage. Very few, if any, hon. Members would differ from my right hon. Friend on that fact. Indeed, I doubt whether anybody in the country—certainly nobody in the Church—would differ from him about the need to uphold the highest possible Christian view of marriage. It is precisely because of the overwhelming support for that view—almost monolithic as a feeling in the House, the General Synod, the Church and the country at large—that we can run the risk of allowing this very modest limited degree of exceptional dispensation without shaking the fabric of rigorous popular orthodoxy.
I pray in aid the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in his eloquent speech—that the debate is about balance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew) hit the nail on the head when he said that the absolute disbarring of remarried, divorced clergy is a disproportionate sanction. We should run the risk of modestly lifting that sanction by endorsing the Measure tonight.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 228 Noes 106.

Division No. 87]
[11.45 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Body, Sir Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Allen, Graham
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Battle, John
Buck, Sir Antony


Beckett, Margaret
Budgen, Nicholas


Beith, A. J.
Burns, Simon


Bell, Stuart
Caborn, Richard


Bellingham, Henry
Callaghan, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bermingham, Gerald
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cartwright, John


Blunkett, David
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Boateng, Paul
Clay, Bob





Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cohen, Harry
Key, Robert


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knox, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lamond, James


Corbett, Robin
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leighton, Ron


Couchman, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cox, Tom
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Dr John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McWilliam, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Madel, David


Dixon, Don
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Doran, Frank
Marland, Paul


Dorrell, Stephen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mates, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Michael, Alun


Foster, Derek
Miscampbell, Norman


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Franks, Cecil
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fraser, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Freeman, Roger
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fyfe, Maria
Morley, Elliot


Gardiner, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Sir Charles


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


George, Bruce
Nelson, Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gordon, Mildred
Patchett, Terry


Gorst, John
Pike, Peter L.


Graham, Thomas
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ground, Patrick
Randall, Stuart


Hanley, Jeremy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hannam, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Jo


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Rogers, Allan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Harris, David
Rowe, Andrew


Haselhurst, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Hayes, Jerry
Ruddock, Joan


Haynes, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heffer, Eric S.
Sheerman, Barry


Henderson, Doug
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Short, Clare


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Soley, Clive


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Squire, Robin


Howells, Geraint
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Stern, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stott, Roger


Illsley, Eric
Straw, Jack


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Temple-Morris, Peter






Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Wheeler, Sir John


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thornton, Malcolm
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Thurnham, Peter
Wilson, Brian


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Winnick, David


Trippier, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Turner, Dennis
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wallace, James



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Roger Sims and Mr. Michael Latham.


Wareing, Robert N.





NOES


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amos, Alan
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Beggs, Roy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gale, Roger


Benyon, W.
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Buckley, George J.
Gow, Ian


Butcher, John
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Chris
Gregory, Conal


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, William


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Durant, Tony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Emery, Sir Peter
Hunter, Andrew





Irvine, Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jack, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Janman, Tim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jessel, Toby
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stevens, Lewis


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stokes, Sir John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Summerson, Hugo


Lightbown, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lilley, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McCrea, Rev William
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maclean, David
Thorne, Neil


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Malins, Humfrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Miller, Sir Hal
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mills, Iain
Ward, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watts, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wells, Bowen


Neubert, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Winterton, Nicholas


Paice, James



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Alistair Burl and Mr. William Powell.


Porter, David (Waveney)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Clergy (Ordination) Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal assent in the form in which the said Measure was last Sessoion.

Mrs. Batool Bibi Shah

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Ken Eastham: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of a constitutent of mine, Mrs. Batool Bibi Shah. I fully recognise that other Members of Parliament have to deal with immigration cases and that it is not possible to raise every individual case in the House as I am doing today. Nevertheless, this case is an exception. I am not seeking privilege for my constituent, but I am pursuing a right to which she is entitled.
Mrs. Shah has lived continuously in the United Kingdom since 1975 where, other than during a brief period of maternity leave, she has worked for the past 14 years as a machinist for an employer in Manchester. She also holds a British passport.
As is quite common in her culture, Mrs. Shah took part in an arranged marriage to Mr. Munreed Hussain Shah in Pakistan in March 1985. Since that time, as her Member of Parliament, I have been involved in making representations to different Departments for Mr. Shah to be permitted to reside with his family in the United Kingdom.
I have in my possession numerous exchanges of correspondence with the Home Office and the Foreign Office dating as far back as July 1985 on this case. Some of the Departments have not always been over-efficient. At times, they came back to me for information which I had already given them. That surprises me, given that nowadays most information is held on computer. No doubt the Minister will have all the answers when he comes to reply, so presumably the computer was working efficiently for the purposes of this debate.
Mrs. Shah was born in March 1955 and her husband in May 1960. I mention that now just in case the Minister intended to make that point himself. I make the point also that in this country there must be hundreds of thousands of wives who are older than their husbands—and few people would consider that factor as of any importance.
After returning home from the wedding, in December 1985, Mrs. Shah gave birth to a daughter, Nuissa. She visited her husband in Pakistan in 1986, and subsequently a second daughter, Mariam, was born in the United Kingdom in February 1987.
No one should attempt to make the case that the relationship is casual. Nor could the marriage be claimed to be bogus. Each time Mrs. Shah wishes to visit her husband in Pakistan, it costs £600 in travel and a further £400 in expenses. On her last visit, in April 1987, she took her youngest daughter, at additional cost. Unfortunately for the family, the father has never seen his second child.
Mrs. Shah occupies a large, three-bedroomed house which is kept impeccably and has been completely refurbished structurally with the assistance of a housing grant which had strong Government support. Mrs. Shah's aged mother, who lives with Mrs. Shah, is a diabetic and unfortunately suffers declining health.
I cannot allow this occasion to pass without referring to statements made by the Prime Minister claiming that the Conservative party is the party of the family. Those

sentiments were echoed by the chairman of the Conservative party in an article in The Daily Telegraphas recently as 31 January 1990:
Family values were the key political issue of the 1990s, Mr. Baker, Conservative party chairman, said last night in a fresh assault on the legacy of the permissive society.
He warned that the erosion of the pre-eminence of the natural family unit of the past 30 years had created serious consequences for the social and moral fabric of the nation." The article went on to note that Mr. Baker had said:
Not only is it just that fathers should contribute to the upkeep of their children; it is also crucial that we begin to break the culture which views it as acceptable for a man to walk away from the consequences of his own actions in this way.
The article continued:
underlining the Prime Minister's concern at the growth in the number of single-parent families, which had doubled to more than a million since 1971 and now represents one in seven families, Mr. Baker insisted that nature had intended raising children to be the work of two people
That is precisely what this debate is about—it is about a whole family.
Article 8 of the European convention on human rights states:
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life; his home and his correspondence.
In article 12 the convention states:
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
That obviously means nothing if the husband, wife and two children cannot live together.
We hear so much nowadays about womens' rights and about equal opportunities, but very often that does not seem to work when we make representations on behalf of women against the interests of men. Equal opportunities do not seem to exist when it comes to women's rates of pay and promotion, and I believe that the same is true when the Home Office deals with cases such as the one that I am presenting to the Minister tonight.
The Shah family are not a drain on state funds. I have in my possession a letter from Mrs. Shah's employer, firmly offering her husband a job when he is given permission to join her. They are a law-abiding family, with no history of any offences whatever, and one could claim that Mrs. Shah has exercised great patience throughout the whole affair, which has lasted five years.
Therefore, I want to know whether the family has any rights, and I also want to know whether their two young children will he condemned to live their lives fatherless. Those children have lived in the United Kingdom all their lives, growing up with our ways and knowing only our style of living. I find it deeply embarassing when I meet the mother month after month at my surgeries and have to give her the same reply, which causes her great depression, as one would expect.
The family are entitled to better treatment than they have been receiving, and I call on the Minister to reconsider the case of Mrs. Batool Bibi Shah and her family, who have been making representations for five years. My submission to the House is that they are entitled to much better treatment than they have received from the Government so far.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I listened most carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for


Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), and I appreciate the reasons for his determination to draw the House's attention to his constituent's case.
The case concerns a decision to refuse entry clearance to the spouse of a person settled in the United Kingdom—the husband of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mrs. Batool Bibi Shah. The application was refused because the Secretary of State was not satisfied, as he must be, that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom. Parliament has provided a right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities against such decisions. Mr. Shah exercised that right, but his appeal was dismissed first by a single adjudicator and later by the immigration appeals tribunal. He has therefore exhausted the normal processes for contesting an adverse decision.
I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the distressing situation in which Mrs. Batool Bibi Shah finds herself. While it is impossible not to sympathise with her, the burden of proof as regards satisfying the requirements of the immigration rule in question rests squarely on the applicant—in other words, her husband. As the hon. Gentleman is, I am sure, aware, the independent appellate authorities, after carefully weighing all the evidence, concluded on two occasions that Mr. Shah had not discharged that burden.
The hon. Gentleman has presented his case very thoroughly, but I am sure that he will not mind if I go over some of the facts that had a special bearing on the refusal of Mr. Shah's application. The application was made barely 12 months after the death of another woman settled in the United Kingdom, whom he had applied to join for marriage and settlement. His engagement to Batool Bibi Shah was arranged little more than six months after his previous fiancee's death, and the marriage took place about three months later.
Mr. Shah's sister was involved in arranging the engagement. It is, I believe, rather unusual for a sister, herself resident in the United Kingdom, to be charged with arranging her brother's marriage—a social duty normally performed by parents, both of whom were alive in this case. The immigration appeals tribunal also remarked that point, and drew its own conclusions. Another factor that was taken into account at all stages of the case was the wife's professed reluctance to join her husband in Pakistan, and the lack of mutual support and communication. Those and other considerations weighed heavily against Mr. Shah.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the marriage rules, and I am glad of the opportunity to put the operation of the primary purpose rule into context. We are not the first Government to act to prevent the use of marriage as a means of settling in the United Kingdom. The Labour Government, in 1977, introduced the first tests to stop marriages of convenience, which had by then become a real problem. Since 1983, the onus has been on the applicant to satisfy the entry clearance officer that the primary purpose of the marriage, or intended marriage, is not to obtain his or her admission to the United Kingdom.
It has been suggested elsewhere that that test is too difficult to pass, because it requires the proof of a negative. Practical experience shows, however, that that is not so. In 1988, some 7,300 spouses were accepted for settlement from the Indian sub-continent on the basis of marriage, representing about 15 per cent. of the acceptances for settlement that year.
Nor do I accept that the test itself is unworkable: it should not be difficult for someone whose marriage was not entered into for the purpose of immigration to explain to the entry clearance officer how he or she met the partner involved, how the marriage was arranged and why the couple propose to live here rather than overseas.
The test is not intended as an attack on the Asian custom of the arranged marriage; rather, it seeks to expose those who exploit it for immigration purposes. In many such cases, admission to this country is an important factor, as the independent appellate authorities have themselves stated, but there is often objective evidence indicating that the applicant's admission was the primary purpose. That may include—as in the present case—a previous attempt by the applicant to come to this country.
It is entirely reasonable, surely, that someone claiming an important benefit, such as admission to this country with a view to settlement, should have to demonstrate his eligibility. Under other provisions in the rules—and, indeed, with respect to many other functions of Government—people must show that they are entitled to the benefits they are claiming. We believe that there is a need to guard against the abuse of the marriage rules by those who do not qualify for admission to this country, and who enter into marriages as a device to obtain settlement.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to what is known in legal jargon as "intervening devotion". The primary purpose rule relates to intentions at the time of marriage, but the actions of the couple after the marriage may suggest whether the requirement has been met. For example, a couple who have shown devotion and have what seems to be a genuine and soundly based marriage will probably satisfy the entry clearance officer that the primary purpose of the marriage was not to obtain admission to the United Kingdom. Among the factors taken into account will be the duration of the marriage and any time spent together outside the United Kingdom.
In this case, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recollect, the question of intervening devotion was fully explored by the independent appellate authorities, but they did not consider that it was sufficiently demonstrated in this case and merited a recommendation to the Home Secretary.
Let us, however, consider again the question of intervening devotion in this case. Mrs. Shah came to this country from Pakistan in 1975 when she was 20 years old. The way of life in Pakistan is therefore not unfamiliar to her. However, when she was interviewed in January 1987, she said that she was not prepared to join her husband there, even for a holiday. So far as we are aware, she has visited her husband in Pakistan only once since returning to the United Kingdom after their marriage in 1985.
The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to Mr. and Mrs. Shah's two children. I agree that that is an extremely important aspect that needed to be very thoroughly considered by the appellate authorities. I believe that it was. Despite the children, however, the couple do not appear to have made any attempt to live, even for a short time, as a family unit outside the United Kingdom, apart from the visit in 1987 to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Eastham: I referred earlier to the fact that Mrs. Shah's aged mother still lives in my constituency. She is a diabetic and needs care. Mrs. Shah has also incurred


certain financial responsibilities. She obtained a Government grant to modernise her home. Is the Minister suggesting that she should walk away from her responsibilities and debts, just to comply with the recommendations?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not suggesting what Mrs. Shah should or should not do. I am suggesting that she failed, because of what she did or did not do, to convince the appellate authorities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that she remained in Pakistan for a considerable time when she married and that she made another visit later. Arrangements must have been made then for her mother. Presumably, therefore, it would be possible, in some way or another, to make similar arrangements now.
I cannot simply ignore a point that appeared to be in the mind of the appellate authorities. When Mrs. Shah was interviewed in 1987, there was little evidence of any

communication between her and her husband; neither was providing the other with support. All these factors, taken together, do nothing to strengthen the case.
I have to repeat that it is impossible not to feel sympathy for Mrs. Shah. I cannot believe, however, that either she or her husband were entirely ignorant of the immigration rules requirements when they entered into the marriage. It is my responsibility to maintain firm and fair immigration control. The majority of spouses who apply for entry clearance to join persons settled in the United Kingdom are able to satisfy those requirements. Mr. Shah has, I am afraid, failed to discharge that burden before the appellate authorities. I regret that nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said persuades me that there are new of exceptional circumstances that would justify my intervention. I am sorry to have to give such a disappointing reply to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.